[fishtank]

From the article:

"Yale Professor David Gelernter then explains why Darwin was wrong:

Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether he can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. The origin of species is exactly what Darwin cannot explain.[4]"

[fishtank]

Dr. Jerry Bergman has taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology at several colleges and universities including for over 40 years at Bowling Green State University, Medical College of Ohio where he was a research associate in experimental pathology, and The University of Toledo. He is a graduate of the Medical College of Ohio, Wayne State University in Detroit, the University of Toledo, and Bowling Green State University. He has over 1,300 publications in 12 languages and 40 books and monographs. His books and textbooks that include chapters that he authored, are in over 1,500 college libraries in 27 countries. So far over 80,000 copies of the 40 books and monographs that he has authored or co-authored are in print. For more articles by Dr Bergman, see his Author Profile.

https://crev.info/author/jbergman/

[Blood of Tyrants]

I heard of a geologist for an oil company who found oil deposits using his belief in the shaping of the world from the Great Flood. The oil company didn’t care how he did it because he did it so well.

[GOPJ]

If you don’t believe in Darwin, Global Warming or the Rule of White Liberal Elites, the FBI will stick a domestic terrorist label on you ...

[pepsionice]

I watched the Gelernter interview (up on Youtube) that has been done in the past month. What he generally digs at....for evolution to occur....there is a mathematical sequence and timeline that needs to occur. Evidence does not support the mathematical challenges required. You would require billions of years for the evolution factor to develop, and you simply don’t have that timeline existing.

In simple terms, you have a house standing and one guy says that it took two years to build the house, but actual evidence says that it’s only been built in the last six weeks.

[alloysteel]

Charles Darwin only advanced an HYPOTHESIS, and never provided proof one way or the other as to its validity.

While many chromosome similarities between different species have been found, there is no known mechanism by which these chromosomes, and the various traits they control, has ever SPONTANEOUSLY been transmitted from one species to another, and no way for one species to spontaneously arise from another.

Now, highly trained and meticulous scientists and technicians CAN splice genes together, and sometimes produce a viable organism, but again, not spontaneously.

The refinement of breeding techniques can enhance genetic differences within a given species, so very different looking specimens can interbreed and produce (mostly) viable offspring, but never has any effort by human endeavor been able to create a whole new species.

[semimojo]

That's odd.

Bergman calls his prime example, Gelenter, "leading" and "esteemed", but nowhere in the entire article does he mention that Gelenter is a professor of computer science, not any form of biology.

It's almost as if he knew it would really undercut his (implied) premise that evolutionary professionals were rejecting the theory.

[freedumb2003]

>>Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether he can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. The origin of species is exactly what Darwin cannot explain<<

Flat out wrong.

[freedumb2003]

You meed to stop posting from the science version of Cracked magazine.

[momincombatboots]

Lol.. Darwin’s theories have a mth problem and are about as relevant as Aoc climate predictions.
Serious scientists stopped believing them a long time ago. Too afraid to admit it publicly.. which has kept that hoax alive in the “education system”.
I am ashamed to have believed it for a short time in my youth..

[Seruzawa]

The chance of one small protein chain assembling by accident is around 10 to 164th power. To have a cell you needs many many proteins all at once in a combined area behind a cell wall. Good luck with that.

[ro_dreaming]

I’ve said for at least a decade that Darwin notice MICRO-evolution in the Galapagos finches. There has been no evidence, anywhere, of MACRO-evolutionary changes. Say, a dinosaur turning into a tern, swallow, eagle, vulture, or anything else.

Just for our lungs to work, how many “evolutionary changes” would be necessary? More than one, and that means, you can’t get there from here.

[YogicCowboy]

Intra-species adaptation is observable and replicable, even within a single specimen during its life cycle; the rest is not.

[cherry]

reminds me of a guy my mom knew who worked for GE decades ago and AFTER his pension was secure, dare to criticize the war machine known as the military/industrial contrast, the one in which he prospered....

[central_va]

Great hoaxes through out history:

1. Climate change/warming

2. Darwin's theory

3. Justice is blind

4. Self rule

[Mr. K]

You can breed a toy poodle but you can’t breed a poodle with a 3rd eye

[DungeonMaster]

You can’t disprove the religion of evolution to it’s true believers.

[bert]

CEH is not a credable source

[bert]

Fake news from fake source