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.

[mrjesse]

The creation story only makes sense to primitive goat herders.

Dah dum dee dah dum dee.yoooooooodeleeooahh. Ahah! And the exclusive speciation by evolution theory only makes sense to primitive elephant herders. [wide grin]

You claim to have evidence that supports the creation theory, what is it?

To list a few, the diversity and yet commonality of life and life forms, the existence of matter and life, and even intelligence, the appearance of design, irreducible complexity. Also the amazingness of the history in the Bible. (Hey. Ancient works of history are worth considering too!) But of course none of these will qualify as "science" because "science" adheres to the dogma that "any idea which posits a moral first cause is wrong regardless of evidence" so really there's no point in asking for evidence for something that by definition one says is impossible to begin with.

Best,

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

To list a few, the diversity and yet commonality of life and life forms, the existence of matter and life, and even intelligence, the appearance of design, irreducible complexity. Also the amazingness of the history in the Bible. (Hey. Ancient works of history are worth considering too!) But of course none of these will qualify as "science" because "science" adheres to the dogma that "any idea which posits a moral first cause is wrong regardless of evidence" so really there's no point in asking for evidence for something that by definition one says is impossible to begin with.

You are simply ignorant about the scientific method. Simply provide a falsifiable hypothesis to test. In other words show how Creationism can be falsified and then it will count as a credible theory, for which evidence can be shown for and against. A theory that can't be falsified, like string theory, is worthless, at best a pleasant diversion.

[Religion Moderator]

You are simply ignorant

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

Reading the mind of another poster is a form of "making it personal."

[LeGrande]

I am sorry I didn’t realize that this was a religion thread. I thought it was a crevo thread for some silly reason : )

[Fichori]

"Simply provide a falsifiable hypothesis to test. In other words show how Creationism can be falsified and then it will count as a credible theory, for which evidence can be shown for and against. A theory that can't be falsified, like string theory, is worthless, at best a pleasant diversion." [excerpt]

Can't we just put all of Creationisms unfalsifiable/untestable 'facts' into an ad hoc methodology based on philosophical assumptions?

We could call it Methodological Creationism.

Then, Creationism could hide behind its very own Methodology, just like Evolution.

Or do you prefer to stick to the empirical methodology.

[Fichori]

"I am sorry I didn’t realize that this was a religion thread. I thought it was a crevo thread for some silly reason : )"

It is a crevo thread, the person who posted it just happened to post it in the RF.

A fact that slipped by several of us, myself included.
I first realized it when I saw post 254

For something that is on the RF, the RM has been very lenient.(At least it looks that way to me)

So, we can still debate the issues, we just need to be a bit more courteous than we normally would be in a crevo debate.

[Coyoteman]

We keep seeing references on this website to "the religion of evolution" and "the church of Darwin" so what's the objection to scientists posting in the Religion Forum?

Creationists invade all of the science threads, so it's only fair, right?

[Fichori]

We keep seeing references on this website to "the religion of evolution" and "the church of Darwin" so what's the objection to scientists posting in the Religion Forum?

Creationists invade all of the science threads, so it's only fair, right?

I'm not objecting, are you?

If the RM thinks its suitable for the RF, thats fine with me.

I actually think it would be beneficial if these debates were held to the standard of the RF.

Once again, as long as scientific objectivity is not compromised, I have no objection to scientific debates on the RF.

[mrjesse]

You are simply ignorant about the scientific method.

You mean the one that says "Observe, hypothesize, then prove by publishing in an evolutionary journal?" (That IS how it is, right? An idea can be published in many journals but if it's not published in a evolutionary minded journal, no scientist is going to buy it. And if it is published in an evolutionary journal, many will buy into it in faith.)

Okay, okay, so it's supposed to be "Observe, hypothesize, test/demonstrate."

But we have to get a little lenient when it comes to making good guesses about what happened in the past when we weren't there. For example, in the case of gravity, I may observe that a small rock leaves a smaller dent then a big rock when dropped from the same elevation. I may then hypothesize that bigger rocks or heavier rocks fall harder. I may then test my hypothesis and demonstrate it for all to see -- and they can reproduce the experiment themselves. But with the science of determining what happened, when we can't go back and see it happen nor can we re-create the scenario, we must let a lot rest on assumption and faith.)

Simply provide a falsifiable hypothesis to test. In other words show how Creationism can be falsified and then it will count as a credible theory, for which evidence can be shown for and against.

That's sort of a tricky line of reasoning, because you're asking for a way in which it could be -- but isn't -- falsified. So of course whatever claim of falsifiability I make could well be met with "Well but that doesn't falsify it yet and therefore we don't have any evidence that that could falsify it."

Now, if it were actually proved and demonstrated that the pine tree was indeed related by common ancestor to humans, that would falsify the theory that God created pine trees and humans separately. But the response skeptical of my point will probably say "Well there's no way we can demonstrate that unquestionably, so it therefor is not falsifiable. In other words, the only claim of falsifiability which is likely to be accepted is one that actually does falsify.

How about the claim that pinetrees and humans share a common ancestor? How is that falsifiable? I mean, none of us was there. The point is that when we are making theories about "what happened (or didn't happen) a gajillion years ago" we must take many things by faith and just live with the fact that they are unfalsifiable.

The idea of falsifiability is important where it can be applied. For example, if I hypothesize that if I connect up some transistors in certain way (of course based on my observation of how transistors work) I can then hook them up that way and say "If they work thus and such, then my hypothesis may be correct. If they don't work that way, then it's wrong." (Electronics is my field of science.) Since I'm controlling the experiment and reproducing it in my lifetime, this works pretty well.

A theory that can't be falsified, like string theory, is worthless, at best a pleasant diversion.

I agree with you on the string theory, by the way. Truth really is my goal.

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

But we have to get a little lenient when it comes to making good guesses about what happened in the past when we weren't there. For example, in the case of gravity, I may observe that a small rock leaves a smaller dent then a big rock when dropped from the same elevation. I may then hypothesize that bigger rocks or heavier rocks fall harder. I may then test my hypothesis and demonstrate it for all to see -- and they can reproduce the experiment themselves. But with the science of determining what happened, when we can't go back and see it happen nor can we re-create the scenario, we must let a lot rest on assumption and faith.)

You would be absolutely correct that bigger or heavier rocks fall harder, F=MA. I think that you are trying to disprove the Theory of Gravity but your example only agrees with it.

How about the claim that pinetrees and humans share a common ancestor? How is that falsifiable? I mean, none of us was there. The point is that when we are making theories about "what happened (or didn't happen) a gajillion years ago" we must take many things by faith and just live with the fact that they are unfalsifiable.

The claim is easily falsifiable. We know of two completely different types of cells, prokaryotes and eukaryotes. All that would be necessary to demonstrate that trees and humans don't have a common ancestor would be to show that the building blocks of those organisms (the cells) are different. No faith required, that is the point : ) There are many, many ways to falsify TOE, TOG, The laws of Thermodynamics, etc. If you pick up a rock and let it drop but it doesn't drop you have just disproved the Theory of Gravity. If you can show a descendant that doesn't have the characteristics of its ancestors then you have just disproved the Theory of evolution. Easy : )

The idea of falsifiability is important where it can be applied.

Falsifiability can always be applied. The problem is that in complex systems it becomes hard to isolate cause and effect for particular variables. Just like your field, design flaws, shorts, inductance, resistance, capacitance, programming errors, programming, all interact and make detecting problems interesting : ) Your field is a perfect example of the scientific method.

[mrjesse]

You would be absolutely correct that bigger or heavier rocks fall harder, F=MA. I think that you are trying to disprove the Theory of Gravity but your example only agrees with it.

I'm not trying to disprove the theory of gravity. I'm using it as an example of applying the scientific method where one can actually observe, hypothesize, and TEST the hypothesis by actually re-performing the experiment. I give this illustration as a contrast to arenas where we simply cannot actually recreate the experiment and see if it works again, such as the big bang and any science relating to the study of what happened a bajillion years ago where we cannot actually re-perform the experiment.

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

The claim is easily falsifiable. We know of two completely different types of cells, prokaryotes and eukaryotes. All that would be necessary to demonstrate that trees and humans don't have a common ancestor would be to show that the building blocks of those organisms (the cells) are different.

Could you please elaborate? I'm not the smartest kid on the block to be sure. But I am trying to learn. So you say that all that would required to falsify would be to show that the building blocks were entirely different - but isn't the main observation leading to the hypothesis that the building blocks do share some commonality? So in other words, aren't you saying that "The theory could be falsified if it's main observation were to be found incorrect?" Shouldn't the means of falsifiability be something other then just debunking the primary observation?

Isn't the whole point of falsifiability to provide a means of checking it which is at least somewhat independent of its primary line of reasoning? It just doesn't sound correct to say "Here's the evidence for this theory. This theory is falsifiable because if we didn't have the evidence for it, it would be falsified." But maybe I'm just not understanding you. Thanks,

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

So you say that all that would required to falsify would be to show that the building blocks were entirely different - but isn't the main observation leading to the hypothesis that the building blocks do share some commonality?

Actually the similar building blocks were a prediction based on the hypothesis. Prior to the Theory of Evolution there were lots of theories floating around, creation, spontaneous generation, etc. The theory that different types of creatures could have a common origin was revolutionary. As it turns out there seem to be three distinct types of 'life' forms, prokaryotes, eukaryotes, and viruses. You are an eukaryote and eukaryotes have been around for about 1.5 billion years. Prokaryotes (bacteria mostly) have been around for about 3.5 billion years. The jury is still out on Viruses.

Shouldn't the means of falsifiability be something other then just debunking the primary observation?

The observation is not the theory. Lets take the theory of Gravity for example. The observation is that things fall. Originally it was observed and it was logically assumed that heavier objects accelerated and fell faster than lighter objects. Careful observation and testing debunked that theory. Then another guy came up with the theory that objects were attracted to each other in strict relationship to their mass and distance. He even came up with great mathematical relationships to demonstrate how accurately the theory could predict motion and force. Then another guy came along with a different theory that claimed that objects don't attract each other, they merely change the shape of spacetime around them. Very, very careful observations showed that that theory did a better and more accurate job of predicting motion.

The story of the Theory of Evolution is very similar. Prior to TOE the Theory of Creation did a pretty good job, God created all of the different species and like begat like. The theory of evolution introduced a slight change to the Creation Theory, offspring have slight changes from their parents and those slight changes are passed on to the succeeding generations. That is it, TOE in a nutshell.

This is where the Intelligent Design hypothesis comes in. Just like Einstein's theory doesn't dispute the basic observations of gravity, they don't dispute the basic observations of evolution. They simply try to provide a different cause. All ID theory has to do is provide a better prediction than the Theory of Evolution does. The prediction is what is falsifiable.

Isn't the whole point of falsifiability to provide a means of checking it which is at least somewhat independent of its primary line of reasoning? It just doesn't sound correct to say "Here's the evidence for this theory. This theory is falsifiable because if we didn't have the evidence for it, it would be falsified."

No. Evidence supporting a theory is actually evidence supporting a theories predictions. Having evidence supporting a theory is very important, but a single exception will falsify the theory, that is what is meant by being falsifiable. If a theory makes no testable predictions it isn't falsifiable and as such is worthless. ID makes no testable predictions, just like string theory. To begin a hypothesis has to match all of the known observations, that is the beginning point and also the ending point if it's testable predictions are accurate enough. F=MA is a testable prediction, based on Newtons Theories.

[mrjesse]

Actually the similar building blocks were a prediction based on the hypothesis. Prior to the Theory of Evolution there were lots of theories floating around, creation, spontaneous generation, etc. The theory that different types of creatures could have a common origin was revolutionary.

Ahh, thanks for the explanation. So if I understand correctly, the observation was that selective pressures caused microevolution, and the theory then was that all of life's diversity was due to many microevolutions over a really long time, and then the fact that pine trees and humans share some of the same machinery in their cells was the fulfillment of the prediction? Do I have that correct?

But it seems odd to me to then say that "The theory that pine trees and humans are related could be falsified if it were discovered that they did not share common cellular structures." Now maybe before it was known that trees and humans shared some similarities it could be said that "If we discover that trees and humans share no common structures, then the theory will be falsified" but now that it has been discovered (if it indeed has) that trees and humans do share common structures, then the theory is no longer falsifiable by this argument. So how again is the theory that trees and humans are related by common descent falsifiable? We can't just say that "It's falsifiable because if it were to be proven that they share no common structures (which we've already approved that they do share) then we'll know it's wrong." We can't falsify it based on a prediction that's already been fulfilled!

As it turns out there seem to be three distinct types of 'life' forms, prokaryotes, eukaryotes, and viruses.

I think I'll argue you on the idea that viruses are life forms. As a computer programmer, I believe I have at least a workable understanding of information and hardware. Viruses are only a life form to the same extent as a computer virus or a bad chain letter. (Search google if you've never heard of a chain letter.) Viruses cannot live on their own, cannot metabolize, or reproduce. They are nothing more then a bad chain letter that tricks cells into making copies. They are just information, not life! Just like computer viruses. Rarely is a comparison between the computer world and the biological world so good as is the comparison between viruses and computer viruses.

Then another guy came along with a different theory that claimed that objects don't attract each other, they merely change the shape of spacetime around them. Very, very careful observations showed that that theory did a better and more accurate job of predicting motion.

That sounds a bit suspect. Could you provide me with references, please? Warp space-time? Sounds awfully sci-fi-ish. Thanks.

I see many things in the world around me that appear to me to falsify TOE, but they are all explained away as "Well, it is obviously fittest that way because this is how it ended up evolving."

For example, the enormous gap between the one human species and the alleged next of kin in intelligence. Seriously, even the most primitive people who were ever recorded in history were still intelligent and had a language and could tell stories about the past and so on. If you were just learning that raindrops fell randomly on the ground, then you went outdoors in the rain and found a 5 foot perfectly dry circle, and your teacher said "Well, randomness does allow for long stretches of zeros" you'd still be pretty skeptical. Likewise, when the theory tells me that all development was just small changes guided only by current circumstances, I find it very unlikely that such humans would be so highly intelligent and no in between species.

Another is regarding certain "appendages" which are hardly vestigial which on many mammals hangs in a most vulnerable spot where it is highly likely to get caught by a sharp stick and render the male of this species unable to produce further offspring.

And the jugular is right out in the open! The spinal cord, heart, brain, and lungs are inside bone armer plating. And the eyes, even though they have to look out, are, on most mammals set deep in bone protectors. Imagine primitive man running through the woods, and a branch with a sharp point slices across his neck -- having the jugular right there just isn't a good idea for the survival of the fittest!

Then there are many other things that just don't make sense. For example, irreducible complexities appear in many things. Birds of flight, for example, is an amazing feat. Birds need to be strong and light and have the correct geometry. So many things would have to be correct - even for them to glide! In order for them to have evolved from flightless to soaring creatures, there would have to have been a strong selective pressure where very minute differences in weight and shape made an extreme difference in fitness. And this would have to go on for millions of generations! Even farmers, ever so carefully breeding their livestock for certain features still haven't produced horses that go 200 miles an hour or weigh 20 tons or whatever. And nature's selective pressures aren't anywheres near as strong and certainly not forward-looking as a horse-breeder!

And the bird's feather is a whole new story - a flight feather is extremely complex. And the organ that grows each feature is also extremely complex. The step between hair and a flight feather is enormous.

But what is the response to things that don't make sense with the theory? "Well, obviously it happened so it must have been possible."

To go from what we do see, specifically micro-evolution, to say then that all life evolved from one first cell, is one giant leap of spelucative faith. Now if one does subscribe to the dogma that God doesn't exist, then Darwin's idea is the easiest way out. But as it turns out, not all people subscribe to that dogma.

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

By the way, what predictions does the theory of “All life descended from a single cell” make which have heretofore never been discovered true?

Can anyone name any? The more the better. I’d like to hope that the theory’s predictions don’t consist entirely of ones that have already been discovered to be fulfilled.

Thanks!

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

So if I understand correctly, the observation was that selective pressures caused microevolution, and the theory then was that all of life's diversity was due to many microevolutions over a really long time, and then the fact that pine trees and humans share some of the same machinery in their cells was the fulfillment of the prediction? Do I have that correct?

Close. The theory is that changes are natural and that selective pressures eliminated non beneficial changes.

So how again is the theory that trees and humans are related by common descent falsifiable?

If trees and mammals were created independently then they wouldn't be expected to have similar cellular characteristics. Just like Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes have dramatically different structures. So if trees and Mammals had a different cellular structure it would be impossible for them to have a common ancestor. Thus evolution would be falsified.

As it turns out there seem to be three distinct types of 'life' forms, prokaryotes, eukaryotes, and viruses.

I think I'll argue you on the idea that viruses are life forms.

That is why I put 'life' in single quotes. Viruses are neither alive nor dead. They may be the transition to life. Until we know what and how the controlling mechanism in the cell operates, I believe the jury is still out.

That sounds a bit suspect. Could you provide me with references, please? Warp space-time? Sounds awfully sci-fi-ish. Thanks.

Yes of course. My personal reference is "The Feynman Lectures on Physics" by Feynman, Leighton and Sands. Or just google, space-time Lorentz transformation, I am sure that will give you plenty of background information.

I find it very unlikely that such humans would be so highly intelligent and no in between species.

There are many intelligent species, dolphins may be the smartest. Except for tool making they may outclass us.

Imagine primitive man running through the woods, and a branch with a sharp point slices across his neck -- having the jugular right there just isn't a good idea for the survival of the fittest!

Yes there are many, many oddities and imperfections in our 'design' especially our lower back and hip connection. Any good structural engineer could do a better job designing a lot of our body. But our lower back is an example of evolution at work. Clearly the original frame was for a creature that walked on all fours, that has been altered to walk on two limbs.

For example, irreducible complexities appear in many things. Birds of flight, for example, is an amazing feat. Birds need to be strong and light and have the correct geometry. So many things would have to be correct - even for them to glide!

Nothing about flight is irreducibly complex and there is an extremely wide variety of ways that it is accomplished, from insects to birds to bats to fish to me and my GlaStar. Next to swimming methods, flying methods may be the most diverse. Flying is easy, even my wife can do it with a little prodding : )

To go from what we do see, specifically micro-evolution, to say then that all life evolved from one first cell, is one giant leap of spelucative faith.

That is why trying to falsify it is so important, if it can't be falsified, all we have then is faith and that is meaningless.

Now if one does subscribe to the dogma that God doesn't exist, then Darwin's idea is the easiest way out. But as it turns out, not all people subscribe to that dogma.

The problem is that 'Gods' theory of like begetting like and everything being created in a week 7000 years ago has been falsified.

[LeGrande]

By the way, what predictions does the theory of “All life descended from a single cell” make which have heretofore never been discovered true?

Actually that isn't a prediction of TOE it is an observation that supports TOE. Until TOE came along no one would have guessed that to be the case. Your question is your answer : )

I’d like to hope that the theory’s predictions don’t consist entirely of ones that have already been discovered to be fulfilled.

Why not? The theories of Gravity have all been based on past observations. The utility of the theories is that they help us understand the observations. Newton was 99.99% correct with his predictions (still is) it was simply a few tiny, tiny differences in observation that differed from the prediction that led to the theory of relativity.

Like I told the other poster, look to the controlling mechanism in the cell for your answers. We are still at the pre Newton stage in understanding evolution and biology, the basic 60% of how it works are understood, but that last 30 to 40% is likely to alter our understanding of evolution more than Einstein altered our understanding of gravity. But just like Einstein didn't dispute the tested observations of gravity, the person who takes our understanding of evolution to the next level won't dispute the basic observations of evolution and biology either.

There are still huge advances left to made in the biological sciences and the complexities are light years beyond basic physics, QED and Relativity included. We are just now getting the tools we need to understand life itself. We are living in exciting times. Isn't there a ancient Chinese curse about living in exciting times?

[mrjesse]

The problem is that 'Gods' theory of like begetting like and everything being created in a week 7000 years ago has been falsified.

How so?

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

The problem is that 'Gods' theory of like begetting like and everything being created in a week 7000 years ago has been falsified.

How so?

Are you serious? LOL Which law of thermodynamics would you like me to use to disprove the Bibles story of creation? Take your pick : )

Have you read up on the space-time stuff? It helps discussing stuff if we have a common starting point.

[Fichori]

"If trees and mammals were created independently then they wouldn't be expected to have similar cellular characteristics." [excerpt]

Leonardo Da Vinci created paintings independently and yet they show common characteristics.

I think the real question is weather or not common characteristics point to a common ancestor or a common designer