The Sunset of Darwinism

tfp ^ | 06.04.08 | Julio Loredo

[Coleus]

Praised until recently as dogma, Darwin’s theory of evolution is now fading away, discredited by the same science that bore its poisoned fruit. Instead, the Christian vision of a supernatural design is being increasingly affirmed. “Evolution is now a datum proven beyond any reasonable doubt and no longer a theory, it’s not even worth taking the trouble to discuss it.” This is what a spokesman proclaimed at the Festival of Science held in Genoa in November 2005, thereby neglecting a very important aspect of modern science—the need to be open to new perspectives. Instead, the truth is quite the opposite. Paradoxically, evolutionists are taking an ever greater distance from empirical science and are wrapping themselves up in a dogmatism that borders on ideological fanaticism.

Unprovable Hypothesis
“What is left, then, in evolutionism, that is valid according to the scientific method? Nothing, actually nothing!” This is the conclusion of journalist Marco Respinti in his recent book Processo a Darwin (Darwin on Trial, Piemme, 2007). He continues: "Not one of his postulates can be verified or certified based on the method proper to the physical sciences. His whole claim escapes verification. Based on what, therefore, other than on strong prejudices of an ideological nature, can anyone affirm or continue to affirm that the evolutionist hypothesis is true?"  Indeed, the consistency of a scientific theory is founded on its capacity to be verified empirically, be it through observation of the phenomenon in nature or by reproducing it in the laboratory. The evolutionist hypothesis fails on both counts. “Thus,” Respinti shows, “Darwinism remains simply an hypothesis devoid of empirical or demonstrable foundation, besides being unproven. . . . The evolutionist hypothesis is completely unfounded for it does not master the very domain in which it launches its challenge.”

Respinti reaches this “verdict” after a rigorous “trial of Darwin” in which he analyzes the main arguments that debunk the notorious theory, ranging from nonexistent fossil records to the conflict of Darwinism with genetic science and the flimsiness of the “synthetic theory” of neo-Darwinism, without forgetting the countless frauds that have stained notable evolutionists in their insane quest to fabricate the “proofs” that science tenaciously denied them.  Respinti concludes by denouncing the ideological drift of the evolutionist school: “To categorically affirm the absolute validity of the theories of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution based on the claim that discussing them would be unscientific by definition, is the worst proof that human reason can give of itself.”

A Long Sunset
The sunset of the Darwinist hypothesis has picked up speed over the last two decades. For example, consider the work carried out by the Osaka Group for the Study of Dynamic Structures, founded in 1987, in the wake of an international interdisciplinary meeting convened “to present and discuss some opinions opposed to the dominant neo-Darwinist paradigm.” Scientists from all over the world participated, including the outstanding geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, then a professor at the University of Perugia, Italy. In 1980, together with Roberto Fondi, now a professor at the University of Siena, Sermonti wrote Dopo Darwin—Critica all’evoluzionismo (After Darwin—A Critique of Evolutionism, Rusconi, 1980). “Biology,” Sermonti explains, “has no proof at all of the spontaneous origin of life, or rather biology has proved its impossibility. There is no such thing as a gradation of life from elementary to complex. From a bacterium to a butterfly to man the biochemical complexity is substantially the same.”   For his part, Fondi shows that from the first appearance of fossils to this day, the variety and riches of living beings have not increased. New groups have replaced older ones, but the intermediate forms that the evolutionists have so frantically searched for do not exist. “The theory of evolution,” Sermonti and Fondi conclude, “has been contradicted as have few other scientific theories in the past.”

In Le forme della vita (The Forms of Life, Armando, 1981), Sermonti unveils other obstacles to Darwinism. According to the renowned geneticist, the “random” origin of life and the gradual transformation of the species through “selective change” are no longer sustainable because the most elementary life is incredibly complex and because it is now proven that replacement of living groups takes place “by leaps” rather than “by degrees.”  Putting together forty years of experience, in 1999 he wrote Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione (Forgetting Darwin—Shadows on Evolution, Rusconi, 1999). With rigorous argumentation, the author demolishes the three pillars of Darwinism: natural selection, sexual mixing and genetic “change.” According to him, history will remember the theory of evolution as the “Big Joke.”

Not Just Creationists
Sermonti has been often accused of being a “creationist” or a “religious fundamentalist” even though he has always said he does not fit his scientific vision into a Christian perspective, and this yet one more aspect to note in the polemic against Darwinism, which many people other than Christians also contest it.  In this sense, it is interesting to note the recent editorial in Il Cerchio, “Seppellire Darwin? Dalla critica del darwinismo agli albori d’una scienza nuova,” ("Bury Darwin? From a Critique of Darwinism to the Dawn of a New Science") containing essays by seven specialists including Sermonti, Fondi and Giovanni Monastra, director of Italy’s National Institute for Food and Nutrition Research. The title refers to the famous phrase by Chandra Wickramasinghe, a professor of applied mathematics of the University College of Cardiff, “The probability that life was formed from inanimate matter is equal to 1 followed by 40,000 zeros . . . . It is large enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution.”

From Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione’s introduction: For the first time in Italy, a critique of Darwinism is presented in all its complexity thanks to the interdisciplinary contribution of scholars of several orientations—[b]eyond the polemic between neo-Darwinian fundamentalists and religious integralists, the essay demonstrates how the critique of the now old neo-Darwinist paradigm opens the doors to a new science.

A Crisis of the Positivist Paradigm
Francis Crick, who together with Watson discovered the structure of DNA, openly declared, “An honest man, armed only with the knowledge available to us, could affirm only that, in a certain sense, the origin of life at the moment appears to be rather a miracle,” In the same wavelength, Harold Hurey, a disciple of Stanley Miller who made history with his failed attempt to recreate life in the laboratory from a so-called primordial broth, said, “All of us who studied the origins of life uphold that the more we get into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved in any way.” Indeed, a lot of faith is required to believe in evolutionism, and it is precisely that faith, of a clearly positivist^[1] mold, that is now beginning to weaken.

In Darwinismo: le ragioni di una crisi (Darwinism: The Reasons of a Crisis), Gianluca Marletta sticks his finger in the wound by observing that “The crisis of Darwinism is above all a crisis of the philosophical paradigms that allowed its success.”  “One cannot understand the origin of this doctrine,” Marletta explains, “without going back to the cultural climate of ‘triumphant positivism’ straddling the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.” According to Marletta, Darwinism constituted a wonderful occasion to strengthen the positivistic view of the world being affirmed at that time. Darwinism represented the perfect tool to transplant, into the biological field, the mechanic and materialist paradigms already imposed on the social sciences. This is the true motive of this theory’s success. A motive that now begins to subside with the crisis of the positivist paradigm. This explains the almost fanatical tenacity with which evolutionists are defending their convictions. “Many fear,” concludes Marletta, “that the fall of Darwinism can bring down with it the whole positivist vision of the world.”

God’s Comeback
The crumbling of positivism is bringing back to the limelight issues that a certain conventional wisdom thought to have definitively eliminated. Shaken from the sudden crumbling of old certainties, worried about the chaos that increasingly marks this postmodern age, many people are once again asking the fundamental questions: Does my life have a transcendental meaning? Is there an intelligent project in nature? In short, does God exist?   Sociologist Rosa Alberoni wrote about this in her book, Il Dio di Michelangelo e la barba di Darwin (The God of Michelangelo and Darwin’s Beard), published last November by Rizzoli with a preface by Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council Justice and Peace. The onslaught of “Darwin’s worshippers,” Alberoni explains, is carried out by the “usual destructive atheists obsessed with the goal of stamping out Christ and destroying the Judeo-Christian civilization after having sucked its blood and essence.” This sullen assault, however, in the deeply changed ambience of post-modernity, risks being counterproductive: The monkey myth is what really shook ordinary people. Like soldiers woken up by an alarm in the middle of the night, Christian believers and [O]rthodox Jews prepared for the defense. Or rather for the war, because that is what it has become . . . [o]n the symbolic level, the bone of contention is the ancestor of man: God or a monkey? Should one believe in God or in Darwin? This is the substantial nature of the ongoing clash in our civilization.

In other words, a real war of religion looms in the dawn of the Third Millennium. Precisely that which secularists have tried to avoid at all cost.

Footnote:

1. Positivism is the philosophical system created by August Comte (1798–1857), which only accepts the truths that we can reach by direct observation or by experimentation. Thus it denies classical philosophy, theology and all supernatural religion.

[svcw]

Very interesting.

[Hiddigeigei]

Ho-hum!

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

Nice to read on a Friday evening near Midnight where I am...

Thank GOD - it’s almost MIDNIGHT for the Darwinian (satanic) Lie that has decieved and helped destroy multiplied millions....

And that it is, perhaps, once again, Daybreak with the Daystar rising in the hearts and minds of millions more who may be able to glimps the awe and majesty and worth of their own lives, created in the Image of our Creator God!

[YHAOS]

Oh-oh. Now you've done it.

Beep TTT

[MindBender26]

Oh, no. NTSA

[PugetSoundSoldier]

So if we’re to discount evolution because of a supposed lack of proof, then how did life arise, and what proof is there for that method?

[MindBender26]

Don't waste your breath or the electrons to send it.

The FRaliban is awake tonight! :`)

(My favorite point is that with many of these people, you can take their FR bios, remove the words Jesus and God, then substitute the words Mohammad and Allah and you would think you were reading the teachings of some mad Ayatollah!)

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Darwinism represented the perfect tool to transplant, into the biological field, the mechanic and materialist paradigms already imposed on the social sciences.

There is plenty of evidence in old (and not so old) Darwinian books to support this. You can download many of them here: Darwinism-Eugenics. Scroll down to the Resources section.

[Hoplite]

NTSA

YTSA.

Forever and ever, Amen.

= )

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Advice taken. Have a good night!

[Coyoteman]

Praised until recently as dogma, Darwin’s theory of evolution is now fading away, discredited by the same science that bore its poisoned fruit.

Nonsense.

Scientists have been hearing this for nearly 150 years now, and it still isn't true except in the minds of adherents to some of the more fundamentalist religious beliefs.

Nor will repetition not make it true.

[Coyoteman]

Nor will repetition not make it true.

[editing artifact corrected]

[Retain Mike]

Best scientific answers coalesce when one can observe, measure, replicate by experiment, and compute formulas for a 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. Niels Bohr would say, “Yes, yes you have the mathematics. But does it make sense?” Notable critics say scientists utilize mathematics, but inadvertently venture into philosophy or religion. Rigorous debate continues.

At the other extreme is Darwinism, 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 evolution does fail computational testing with Thermodynamics covering macro-processes. Natural processes, required by natural selection, create increased disorder and release energy. Even huge energy inputs result in Katrina, and not the Brooklyn Bridge absent intentionality. All debate prohibited.

Darwinist advocates contend arguments against require the 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 encounter. Investigation requires sceptical, rigorous intrusion by scientists equivalent to the theoretical physicists of String Theory, who neither tremble before, nor reach for religious heresy.

[LeGrande]

I read the posting but somehow missed the evidence that falsified evolution. Could you be so kind as to point it out. The article is gibberish without it.

[freespirited]

“Biology,” Sermonti explains, “has no proof at all of the spontaneous origin of life, or rather biology has proved its impossibility.

Darwinism, or more accurately, the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, is not about the origin of life. It is about changes in the gene pool of a population over time.

Once one understands the meaning of the term, it becomes clear that there is no shortage of experimental evidence to support evolutionary theory. People like the author are delusional if they think otherwise.

[Jim 0216]

Darwinism is basically a fraud. Intelligent Design on the other hand is basically a self-evident truth. How things have continued they way they have for so long in our educational system, with Darwinism being taught as fact and Creationism almost ignored, is a testament to man’s ability to deny the undeniable.

[Jim 0216]

Its the undeniable evidence of intelligent design which points to an Intelligent Designer.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I read the posting but somehow missed the evidence that falsified evolution.

Darwinism fails some simple tests.

If Darwin's theory of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive: a competition in which only a few in any generation can be winners. But it is perfectly obvious that human life is not like that, however it may be with other species. This inconsistency, between Darwin's theory and the facts of human life, is what I mean by 'Darwinism's Dilemma'. The inconsistency is so very obvious that no Darwinian has ever been altogether unconscious of it. There have been, accordingly, very many attempts by Darwinians to wriggle out of the dilemma. But the inconsistency is just too simple and direct to be wriggled out of, and all these attempts are conspicuously unsuccessful. They are not uninstructive, though, or unamusing.

David Stove, Darwinian Fairytales

[Jim 0216]

Another insurmountable problem with Darwinism is the lack of any evidence of species jumping which is critical for evolution as a viable explanation for the origin of existence.

[Coyoteman]

If Darwin's theory of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive: a competition in which only a few in any generation can be winners. But it is perfectly obvious that human life is not like that, however it may be with other species. This inconsistency, between Darwin's theory and the facts of human life, is what I mean by 'Darwinism's Dilemma'. The inconsistency is so very obvious that no Darwinian has ever been altogether unconscious of it. There have been, accordingly, very many attempts by Darwinians to wriggle out of the dilemma. But the inconsistency is just too simple and direct to be wriggled out of, and all these attempts are conspicuously unsuccessful. They are not uninstructive, though, or unamusing.

David Stove, Darwinian Fairytales

Strawman.

From Wiki:

In his final years Stove began to examine and criticize Darwinism. This surprised and dismayed many of his supporters who were Darwinists and thought Stove was as well, judging from the way he sometimes spoke. However, Stove's attack on Darwinism was not as radical as it appeared - he accepted evolution was true of all living things, and said he had no objection to natural selection being true of more primitive organisms. What he wanted to attack was the allegedly distorted view of human beings proposed by some "Ultra-Darwinists."

[LeGrande]

If Darwin's theory of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive: a competition in which only a few in any generation can be winners. But it is perfectly obvious that human life is not like that, however it may be with other species.

The theory doesn't state that only a few in any generation can be winners. Your extrapolation is simply a poorly constructed strawman. Do you even know what the theory of evolution is?

[LeGrande]

Another insurmountable problem with Darwinism is the lack of any evidence of species jumping which is critical for evolution as a viable explanation for the origin of existence.

Where does the theory of evolution explain the origin of existence? The theory of evolution is very simple, it is simply "the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.."

Do you look to the Bible for the cure for cancer? Never mind answering that, I already know your answer. That is why your reasoning is flawed.

[Oztrich Boy]

Darwin’s theory of evolution is now fading away

Again?

[Tramonto]

Where does the theory of evolution explain the origin of existence? The theory of evolution is very simple, it is simply "the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.."

The ever changing definition of evolution.... I didn't realize the whole evolution/intelligent design debate was about whether or not offspring were clones of their parents.

With Darwinists, it just depends on what the definition of is is.

[Fichori]

And we all know how accurate Wiki is. ;)

[VanShuyten]

I believe in Intelligent Design. I also believe that God designed it so as to be perfectly indistinguishable from evolution.

[Milhous]

And we all know how accurate Wiki is. ;)

It seems that one revisionist wikiwarrior ceaselessly crusades to try to rehabilitate Ra^ther's fraudulent Killian memos.

[Fichori]

All I know about WikiPoodle is that when it comes to controversial subjects, they are best avoided as a source.(especially in debates)

They are somewhat useful for non-controversial stuff though.

[xzins]

In the same wavelength, Harold Hurey, a disciple of Stanley Miller who made history with his failed attempt to recreate life in the laboratory from a so-called primordial broth, said, “All of us who studied the origins of life uphold that the more we get into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved in any way.”

The above is one of the greatest scandals of darwinism....that they now deny that they ever posited a darwinian abiogenesis.

The truth is that they simply redefined their theory and cut out the hard parts.

All of us baby boomers and earlier remember the textbooks with the primordial soup/protein sea/lightning strike stories about the origin of life. Deny as much as they want, I KNOW that darwinianism taught darwinian abiogenesis.

[Randy Papadoo]

I believe in the science of Darwinism, and I believe in the story of creation as written in the Bible.

The first belief is practical, and the second is faith-based. I don’t have a problem with that, so I don’t beat the contradictions to death.

A belief in God (or whatever you want to call it) does not deny science, but does help us reach an understanding of certain mysteries of life and nature not otherwise explainable (yet).

There are plenty of old-time articles of faith which science has rendered obsolete. Nevertheless, going back to the very beginning, there is no science (there are theories) to explain how cells found their way to connect with each other and create life. God did that.

[Non-Sequitur]

Praised until recently as dogma, Darwin’s theory of evolution is now fading away, discredited by the same science that bore its poisoned fruit.

Wishful thinking on the author's part.

[sagar]

God damn Newtonian Gravitational Theory. It caused twin towers collapse.

[LeGrande]

The ever changing definition of evolution.... I didn't realize the whole evolution/intelligent design debate was about whether or not offspring were clones of their parents.

You still don't understand what the theory of evolution is. "the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.."

That is not talking about clones, which are identical.

With Darwinists, it just depends on what the definition of is is.

Again you are confused. That was Clintons problem, not the theory of evolutions problem.

[Wonder Warthog]

"At the other extreme is Darwinism, 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 evolution does fail computational testing with Thermodynamics covering macro-processes. Natural processes, required by natural selection, create increased disorder and release energy. Even huge energy inputs result in Katrina, and not the Brooklyn Bridge absent intentionality."

You score 100%----WRONG. EVERY statement in this paragraph is incorrect.

"Rigorous measurements and experiments require 1,000 to 10,000 times recorded history."

In-lab tests done using short-lived organisms don't need "1000 to 10,000 times recorded history", and prove natural selection quite nicely.

"Yet evolution does fail computational testing with Thermodynamics covering macro-processes. Natural processes, required by natural selection, create increased disorder and release energy."

Study more thermodynamics. Order can INCREASE in open systems . It's only in the "total system" in which order always decreases---localized order is a well-proven phenomenon (crystal growth is one non-living example).

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

The theory doesn't state that only a few in any generation can be winners. Your extrapolation is simply a poorly constructed strawman. Do you even know what the theory of evolution is?

"in every generation of every species a great many more individuals are born than can possibly survive; so that there is in consequence a perpetual battle for life going on among all the constituent individuals of any given generation."

Romanes, Darwin and After Darwin

That's one example. Such quotes from evolutionists can be multiplied indefinitely.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

I know of no one in my age group who does not recall abiogenesis being taught as part of evolution theory.

But, of a truth, Darwin never asked or answered the question "what is life?" He never theorized about abiogenesis openly possibly because it would have been professional suicide in the religious climate of his day to theorize a Godless origin of life. As I recall, his mentioning of a warm little pond was in private correspondence.

Further I suspect the educators of my day expected abiogenesis to be quickly proven owing to the success of Urey/Miller (circa 1953) in simulating lightning strikes to bootstrap amino acids. But the Urey/Miller experiments went no further than amino acids.

They of course did not have the whole story. About the same time, Crick/Watson discovered information in life, i.e. DNA. But neither did they at the time understand the full import of information theory (Shannon, 1948) to molecular biology.

Only recently, circa 2002, have we seen empirical evidence in the Wimmer experiment which bootstrapped the polio virus under laboratory conditions.

Wimmer began with the information sequence of RNA which he synthesized to DNA (because RNA cannot be synthesized) and then synthesized the message from DNA to RNA. When he added the message to a cell free juice, it began transmitting and duplicating.

The bottom line is that information (successful communication) is at the root of life v non-life/death in nature and thus any theory of abiogenesis. And science (owing to its self-imposed restriction of methodological naturalism) has determined no materialistic origin for information in the universe.

For the Christian, the answer is obvious. Jesus Christ is Logos, the Word of God.

he heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. - Psalms 19:1-3

To me it is much like the 1960's measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation which established (and continues to establish by measurements since then) that there was a beginning of real space and real time.

To paraphrase Jastrow's observation of that as the most theological statement (there was a beginning) ever made by science: when science climbs that last mountain of scientific knowledge, it will find the theologians sitting there, waiting for them.

BTW, even the cosmic microwave background radiation records the pressure waves or sound in the early universe when photons decoupled from "electrons, protons, and neutrons; then atoms formed and light went on its way.”

But science as a discipline cannot see what the Christian sees. But of course, Christians who are scientists do see this.

At any rate, the educators of today seem to have been backpedaling on their inclusion of abiogenesis in evolution theory for quite some time now.

[Non-Sequitur]

Intelligent Design on the other hand is basically a self-evident truth.

Which means, I assume, that no evidence supporting it is needed? How convenient.

[xzins]

You are such a blessing, sister. You are always way ahead of my knowledge on these subjects.

Can you explain the RNA/DNA synthesizing again? How did he synthesize what cannot be synthesized?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

And we all know how accurate Wiki is. ;)

Wikipedia even posthumously baptizes the creationist James McCosh as an "evolutionist." I suppose, in the case of Stove, that when evolutionists make that connection, you're supposed to think he believed the same nonsense they believe, and stop citing him. Here's a quote from Stove:

"Of course there are many other characteristics, besides those I have so far mentioned, which are peculiar to our species, persistent in it, and yet extremely injurious to reproductive success. One of the most obvious, and therefore one of the oftenest noticed, is the unparalleled dangerousness in our species of parturition, to both mother and child. Another obvious one, is our ancient propensity for committing suicide. (Although, since there already is at least one sociobiologist who thinks that homosexuality is a device for enhancing your reproductive success - your inclusive reproductive success, of courses - no doubt some sociobiologists think the same about suicide.) A third injurious attribute which persists in our species - and a biological error which I greatly regret having been guilty of myself - is, the reading of hundreds of books about evolution, which abound with idiotic statements such as the ones I have just quoted from Alexander and Darwin."

[Alamo-Girl]

Er, if I may...

Jim 0216: Intelligent Design on the other hand is basically a self-evident truth.

The intelligent design hypothesis simply states that “certain features of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.”

It is "self-evident" in that animals are known to choose their mates and thus affect "certain features" in their offspring.

Also "certain features" is a subset of "all features" and thus the hypothesis does not replace evolution theory.

In my view, the intelligent design hypothesis is so non specific it could have been called a "conjecture" and so self-evident, it could even have been called an "observation."

[LeGrande]

"in every generation of every species a great many more individuals are born than can possibly survive; so that there is in consequence a perpetual battle for life going on among all the constituent individuals of any given generation."

That isn't the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is inherited changes, it says nothing about how successful those changes will be. Some will be successful and some won't be. But for arguments sake using your human example, how many of your billions of sperm that you produce survive? A couple? A dozen if they are lucky?

Where is the evidence that inherited changes don't exist?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!

Wimmer's experiment caused a lot of concern over bioterrorism because he proved that a person could obtain an information sequence even from the internet, order the DNA, synthesize and replicate a deadly virus, a bio weapon:

SCIENTISTS SYNTHESIZE VIRUS FROM SCRATCH

Researchers announced on July 11 that infectious viruses can now be created in the test tube of any modern laboratory. In fact, it has been done most recently at Stony Brook University (SBU), where biochemist Eckard Wimmer’s team has generated active polio virus particles that are capable of infecting living host cells.

According to Wimmer, the viruses were made based on "sequence" information pulled from scientific literature. The word "sequence" refers to the arrangement of chemical base-pairs, which is the chemical spelling of a gene. By getting the "spelling" of each gene in a tiny virus, it is possible to string the genes together in the correct order so they exhibit emergent properties and are fully functional.

Experts can now download a genetic blueprint from the Internet and use mail-order materials to assemble a deadly virus. At a time when the word "bio-terrorism" is a reality, the consequences of this development are both alarming and encouraging, he added. It means that scientists probably can create and prepare vaccines faster and more precisely to fend off biological attacks.

However, this also means anyone could manufacture viruses, or even alter them, potentially making them more dangerous.

According to Wimmer, ready-made chunks of DNA were purchased from commercial sources, and the researchers took the instructions for piecing them together from literature available on the Internet.

"If someone publishes the sequence of any old virus, you can chemically put together a DNA copy of that, and then create the virus," he said. "So with enough money, knowledge, and equipment, you can make any virus for which you can determine the sequence."

The chemical instructions, including the DNA sequence information of many disease organisms, are available on the Internet for scientific use, and more are being added as researchers pursue their work against disease.

In the experiments at SBU, Wimmer and co-workers Jeronimo Cello and Aniko Paul ordered small chunks of viral DNA, called oligonucleotides, and strung the chunks together.

"The most important part of this work is the proof of principle," Wimmer said. "This says that you can generate a virus from the written sequence, and that has consequences."

James LeDuc, at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, told the journal Science that "it is a little sobering to see that folks in the chemistry lab can basically create a virus from scratch."

Given the potential for bio-terrorism, Wimmer said government agencies could monitor what chunks of DNA are being ordered from commercial sources. This would allow the appropriate state authorities to keep track of those who are doing research on dangerous organisms capable of being used for bio-terrorism.

On a more technical note: DNA Replication

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

The above is one of the greatest scandals of darwinism....that they now deny that they ever posited a darwinian abiogenesis.

Indeed, they are simply liars on this point. Examine, for example, chapter 1 of Paul Ehrlich's The Process of Evolution (1963).

All of us baby boomers and earlier remember the textbooks with the primordial soup/protein sea/lightning strike stories about the origin of life. Deny as much as they want, I KNOW that darwinianism taught darwinian abiogenesis.

Sure. Remember Molecules to Man? There were many textbooks just like that one. This is a pattern of behavior with evolutionists. They fabricate their own history. They blot out parts of it that they don't want you to know (or are embarrassing to them) and make up fairytales about other parts. They don't really want you to know about their active role in eugenics (see my FR page). They say that Darwin didn't believe in inheritance of acquired characteristics, and that Lamarck believed in inheritance of mutilations, and they teach these lies in textbooks, whereas the truth is that Darwin believed both. This pattern of historical revisionism began with Darwin himself--Samuel Butler exposed it in Evolution Old and New and Luck or Cunning?.

[xzins]

"If someone publishes the sequence of any old virus, you can chemically put together a DNA copy of that, and then create the virus," he said. "So with enough money, knowledge, and equipment, you can make any virus for which you can determine the sequence."

It takes an intelligent researcher with prior knowledge of the information sequence to put this together.

Not to mention, coming up with the "chunks" in the first place.

Thanks for the education, sister.

Also, "natural selection" can be an intelligent process. That simply highlights that we've yet to define intelligence, and more importantly, we have yet to define life.

[philetus]

Given the potential for bio-terrorism, Wimmer said government agencies could monitor what chunks of DNA are being ordered from commercial sources.”

LOL

[AndyJackson]

If Darwin's theory of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive: a competition in which only a few in any generation can be winners. But it is perfectly obvious that human life is not like that, however it may be with other species.

Ah but until the development of modern medical practice human life was like that to. The rate of survival to reproduction was very low for humans as well, leading to very very large families up into this century. This patern continues to prevail in many "subsistence level" societies.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Its the undeniable evidence of intelligent design which points to an Intelligent Designer.

Two questions:

1. What is the undeniable evidence of intelligent design? What is the proof, other than observation (which is the same level of proof used by believers of the theory of evolution)?

2. Why does the presence of an intelligent designer mean that evolution is wrong?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Ah but until the development of modern medical practice human life was like that to.

The attempts to escape from Darwinism's dilemma all fall into one or other of three types. These can be usefully labelled "the Cave Man way out," "the Hard Man," and "the Soft Man." All three types are hardy perennials, and have been with us, in one version or another, ever since Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859.

What I call the Cave Man way out is this: you admit that human life is not now what it would be if Darwin's theory were true, but also insist that it used to be like that.

In the olden days (the story goes), human populations always did press relentlessly on their supply of food, and thereby brought about constant competition for survival among the too-numerous competitors, and hence natural selection of those organisms which were best fitted to succeed in the struggle for life. But our species (the story goes on) escaped long ago from the brutal regime of natural selection. We developed a thousand forms of attachment, loyalty, cooperation, and unforced subordination, every one of them quite incompatible with a constant and merciless competition to survive. We have now had for a very long time, at least locally, religions, moralities, laws or customs, respect for life and property, rules of inheritance, specialized social orders, distinctions of rank, and standing provisions for external defense, internal police, education, and health. Even at out lowest ebb we still have ties of blood, and ties of marriage: two things which are quite as incompatible with a universal competition to survive as are, for example, a medical profession, a priesthood, or a state.

But the Cave Man part of it is also utterly incredible in itself. It may be possible, for all I know, that a population of pines or cod should exist with no cooperative as distinct from competitive relations among its members. But no tribe of humans could possibly exist on those terms. Such a tribe could not even raise a second generation: the helplessness of the human young is too extreme and prolonged. So if you ever read a report (as one sometimes does) of the existence of an on-going tribe of just this kind, you should confidently conclude that the reporter is mistaken or lying or both.

Even if such a tribe could somehow continue in existence, it is extremely difficult to imagine how our species, as we now know it to be, could ever have graduated from so very hard a school. We need to remember how severe the rule of natural selection is, and what it means to say that a species is subject to it. It means, among other things, that of all the rabbits, flies, cod, pines, etc., that are born, the enormous majority must suffer early death; and it means no less of our species. How could we have escaped from this set up, supposing we once were in it? Please don't say that a god came down, and pointed out to Darwinian Cave Men a better way, or that the Cave Men themselves got together and adopted a Social Contract (with a Department of Family Planning). Either of those explanations is logically possible, of course, but they are just too improbably to be worth talking about. Yet some explanation, of the same order of improbability, seems to be required, if we once allow ourselves to believe that though we are not subject now to natural selection, we used to be.

The Cave Man way out, despite its absurdity, is easily the most popular of the three ways of trying to get out of Darwinism's dilemma. It has been progressively permeating popular thought for nearly one hundred and fifty years. By now it is enshrined in a thousand cartoons and comic-strips, and it is as immovable as Christmas. But we should not infer from this that it lacks high scientific authorities in its favor. Quite the contrary, Cave man has been all along, and still is, the preferred way out of Darwinism's dilemma among the learned, as well as among the vulgar.

- David Stove, Darwinian Fairytales.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!

That simply highlights that we've yet to define intelligence, and more importantly, we have yet to define life.

Precisely so.

It is illogical for anyone to claim a theory of abiogenesis without first defining life v. non-life/death in nature.