Posted on 07/03/2018 6:19:07 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Thanks to a new study, evolutionists and their disciples are having to reexamine some of their most revered dogma. Particularly, evolutionists are now having to make sense of conclusions stating that almost all animal species, as well as humans, showed up on the stage of human history at the same time.
One of the constants of science is that science is constantly revising as it is challenged by new data, new theories, and new ways of observing and measuring data, not to mention the changes in scientific ideology molded by larger worldview shifts. Thomas Kuhn's landmark book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions provides a compelling argument for how scientific paradigms evolve, shift, and even jump to completely different tracks. However, within the many disciplines of science, evolution and evolutionists have remained dogmatic about the necessity of remaining committed to certain a priori assumptions. Well, as it turns out, some of evolution's most revered a priori assumptions are now crumbling in the face of new research.
A study published in the journal Human Evolution is causing quite the stir. In the words of Phys.org, "The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago."
So startling, in fact, that according to David Thaler, one of the lead authors of the study, "This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could."
The study's very own author was so disturbed by how the conclusions challenged current scientific dogma that he "fought against it as hard as [he] could." His "fight" gives credence to the study's conclusions. His eventual acceptance, not to mention publication, of the conclusions speaks well of Thaler's commitment to being a scientist first and an ideologue second.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
It was never the survival of the fittest; only the survival of the sufficient. Which also has a major impact.
Agreed. Even the most “simple” single-celled organism is stupendously complex. It’s more than laughable to believe it could just spring to life from lifeless chemicals. Now THAT’S faith, for anyone who has an inkling just how great that complexity is.
The idea that teeth could “evolve” is beyond laughable, for example. They’re embedded in separate bones in the skull. They evolved in the upper jaw and they tore up the gums of the lower jaw until the lower jaw just decided to evolve teeth too! Yeah, that’s the ticket!
Gee...I wonder how THAT happened?
According to the article, the researchers believe that almost all existing species (incl. humans) appeared more or less within 500,000 years of the present time.
But this does not imply that there is anything "special" about the present time. Rather, the same statement applies equally to any previous point in time - say, 120 million years ago, 300 million years ago, etc.
Stop trying to see only what you want to see.
Regards,
And then, once the first cell was created, how did it split into two, with each half then growing back to the size of the original, repeating indefinitely?
No. What I see all around me, every day everywhere I look is evidence of creation by an omnipotent and omniscient God who's love for me is eternal. I don't try to see it, I see it because it exists and the TRUTH of the Creator is written on my heart. I'll pray that you someday see the same thing.
“Matter is incomprehensibly complex. The very blueprint for life is embedded in the tiniest subatomic particle. That didn’t happen by accident. I believe God created the universe/matter. I don’t really see evolution as threatening the idea of God.”
Interesting to see someone else articulate, basically, what I have been thinking about this. My thinking is that the laws of physics themselves (regarding matter, energy, etc.) have the conditions already built into them favorable for life. To whatever degree evolution is a factor, it is just a manifestation of those favorable physical laws that make life possible.
bkmk
I don't know a whole lot about this (FR Alert! Mrs. Don-o Does Not Know a Lot About This!) but let me recommend "Darwin's Black Box" by biochemist Michael Behe.
He started out like everybody in science does, with "Yeah, little incremental successful adaptations, generation after generation, all adds up to new and better structures and eventually new species" etc. etc. "Probably there are a bunch of researchers who have shown how this happens step-by-step on a biochemical level."
Except they hadn't.
And then Behe ran into the mousetraps. The "Irreducibly Complex" machines.
There are some snazzy intro videos here, ranging from 1 to 1 1/2 min, to an hour or hour-and-a-half, if you want your appetite whetted.
There is no path to spontaneous life. None.
"challenged current scientific dogma"
No, it didn't challenge any dogma. It had a surprising result. That result doesn't change the theory of evolution, or any significant aspect of it. It's a relative detail.
I found the article even though it seems not to have been published yet. Not a surprising mitochondrial result given that the recent glaciation killed off nearly all of the larger animals. Reducing species to a small number of individuals would give their result. It would be nice if these guys learned some climate science.
Maybe there’s no path to spontaneous life, I would like to see more about that. But if the very laws of physics themselves, created by God, are favorable to the springing forth of life, then I would argue that it’s not really spontaneous life anyway.
Everyone should read it. I was a believer in evolution until I actually read Origin of the Species and noticed the flaws in his reasoning that science teachers tend to gloss over.
Indeed, the scriptures tell us many times that if you love a child you must discipline him. The Lord loves Isreal, and is not willing to spare the rod, and thus spoil the child.
Science has an “ideology?”
Yep!
What I find interesting is the vast amount of genes that animals and plants have.
If you believe in Creationism (I do), then you’ll see that all of the DNA in Adam & Eve created all of the diverse races of people we have today. In other words, they already had to “programming” for Asian, African, Semitic, Indo-European and Polynesian genes from the day they were created. Same with dogs, cats, fish, birds, etc. of all types.
God is Marvelous & so is His creation!
You are implying that I don't already see the same thing. Yet nothing in my posting indicates that. I merely argue on the basis of the paleontological evidence.
Regards,
Same here. When "Origins" came out, many abandoned the Catastrophism* view and adopted Uniformitarianism** as evolution would only work within that framework.
*Earth had largely been shaped by sudden, violent events, possibly worldwide in scope.
**Earth had been shaped by the same gradual forces that have been going on throughout all time.
IMO, Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision" and "Earth in Upheaval" are closer to what happened.
bflr
I have heard the term “keyholing” in reference to genetic diversity when a species is reduced to a few hundred individuals and then comes back. Cheetahs keyholed at some time in the past. There is very little genetic diversity among them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.