Mentioned in the first paragraph
Posted on 02/13/2017 9:15:51 AM PST by fishtank
How Many More Anomalies Can Darwinism Take?
February 11, 2017
Darwinism survives not because it is empirically verified, but because it is a deduction from a tightly-held materialistic worldview.
Quine spoke of a “web of belief” that absorbs shocks that would normally falsify a theory. Darwin gave rise to a web of belief made of iron – no, titanium. For over 150 years it has resisted shocks that would snap any other scientific theory, but Darwinism is not a scientific theory. Tom Bethell shows in his new book, Darwin’s House of Cards, that Darwinism is a deduction from a worldview, not an induction from observations. Evolutionists, he shows over and over, derive “facts” from an antecedent faith. “As so often in evolutionist thinking, deduction from doubtful premises is substituted for scientific evidences” (p. 100, after he spends a chapter quoting leading scientists over a century who have all agreed there is no observational evidence for Darwin’s belief in unlimited variation). For this reason, you could hit the evolutionary web of belief with an atomic bomb and its proponents would build it back from the rubble, saying nothing happened. Let’s see some recent examples of problematic observations that would falsify any other theory.
Researchers cast into doubt a tenet of the dominant evolutionary biology model (Phys.org). The “tenet” in dispute is that duplicate genes provide robustness against mutations. Not true:
A team of Université Laval researchers has cast into doubt a tenet of evolutionary biology according to which organisms with more than one copy of the same gene in their genome are more resilient to genetic perturbations. In an article to be published tomorrow in Science, the researchers show that this genetic redundancy can also make the genome more fragile, leaving organisms more vulnerable to the effects of harmful mutations.
(Excerpt) Read more at crev.info ...
Mentioned in the first paragraph
At the risk of being pedantic, isn't it more of an induction?
ie it assumes certain things at the outset and then builds (erroneous) conclusions on them.
Evolutionism and its ugly twin sister, Global Warmism, are contrivances imposed upon the evidence to validate a faulty thesis.
You can add “dark matter” to that list. An unimaginable amount of research time and money is being wasted on attempts to patch the failed “Big Bang” hypothesis.
Thanks for posting. I went to the Discovery Institute’s website and saw they have this on the front page.
I really like the work they and Dr. Stephen Meyer do.
Definitions vary, but I prefer the following:
Induction: The formulation of a general law based on (multiple) observations.
Deduction: Arriving at a final conclusion based upon the application of general laws.
Regards,
Tom Bethell is still writing? He had a GREAT article in (I believe) Harpers 10/82 on this topic. He found taxonomists who believed in evolution, but admitted they believed in it as a matter of faith, NOT true scientific proof. I had been meaning to get a copy of the article. It is likely cited in the book.
Interesting, isn’t it? The scientific method gives us satellites in space, the internet, television, etc, etc, etc. It’s marvelous. But when it touches on religious sensitives, the thing is just a house of cards. Hmm.
[ You can add “dark matter” to that list. An unimaginable amount of research time and money is being wasted on attempts to patch the failed “Big Bang” hypothesis. ]
Someone I trust once told me if they spent all the money looking for dark matter on working on electro-grativics we would have colonized a good chunk of the solar system by now....
From a more reliable source:
In the course of the approximately 5,700 tests conducted by the researchers, they found that for 22 of the 56 gene pairs studies, the paralogous gene took over in the absence of its counterpart. “Gene function is maintained by the paralogous gene still present in the cell, which supports the hypothesis that genetic duplication ensures genome resilience,” said Christian Landry. However, for 22 other pairs, the absence of one of the two paralogous genes interfered with cellular function. “The presence of both paralogous genes from the pair is sometimes essential to maintain cellular function,” he explained. In these cases, the spontaneous mutation of one of the paralogous genes would be sufficient to create a situation where gene function is no longer assured. Duplication of the gene therefore made the genome more fragile.”
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-02-tenet-dominant-evolutionary-biology.html#jCp
...
This makes sense. The longer a duplication exists, the more likely an organism may become dependent on it. But a newer duplications should be more conducive to beneficial mutations.
Anyone who refers to modern evolutionary theory as ‘Darwinism’ has no real interest in the science.
God’s greatest gifts to man were curiosity, observation, the ability to use the earth and its resources for food, shelter and procreation. He sent his Son to help us understand the wonder of it all.
the word SCIENCE means:
Seek
Christ
In
Everything
Natural
Creative
Eternal
It’s only a house of cards when you refuse to apply it. Darwinism is a faith for that reason.
Selling it:
Global warming>Climate change
Creationism>Intelligent design
We’re way past the time for creationists to stop trying to pass religious faith as science and name one (1) tenet of “intelligent design” that explains the natural world better than evolution.
Lots of derogatory comments about evolution on this thread that have nothing to do with the article. Is that your goal?
Anyone who refers to modern evolutionary theory as ‘Darwinism’ has no real interest in the science.
Then the theory evolved to , well maybe it wasn’t spontaneous, but took millions of years. but still the same theory.
Then the building blocks had to be there (methane, temp, etc) , but is was still spontaneous generation under another name.
And now we are back to spontaneous evolution.
https://www.amazon.com/Spontaneous-Evolution-Positive-Future-There/dp/1401926312
IT IS STILL THE SAME THEORY OF SPONTANEOUS GENERATION.
name one (1) tenet of “intelligent design” that explains the natural world better than evolution.
You sit in a room filled with all man made things. You would be called an idiot if you said even one of those things was a random act of nature over time.
You are the most complex thing in that room, yet you will believe you are a random act of nature?
The teleological argument, or `watchmaker fallacy’ has been refuted forwards and backwards, but you guys still haul it out and waste our time with it.
Open your own eyes. Name one tenet .....
In these cases, the spontaneous mutation of one of the paralogous genes would be sufficient to create a situation where gene function is no longer assured. Duplication of the gene therefore made the genome more fragile.”
The Watchmaker “fallacy” keeps getting brought up because it’s never actually been refuted.
Huxley used a false analogy against Paley, and the tradition has continued ever since.
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.