Posted on 08/25/2019 2:15:58 PM PDT by Roman_War_Criminal
Renowned Yale computer scientist David Gelernter claims that he is abandoning Charles Darwins theory of evolution.
Gelernter, who formerly served as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, published a column earlier this year detailing his move away from evolutionary theory. The column, which was titled Giving Up Darwin, provides Gelernters arguments against Darwinism.
Darwins theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from old ones in a constantly branching, spreading tree of life. Those brave new Cambrian creatures must therefore have had Precambrian predecessors, similar but not quite as fancy and sophisticated. They could not have all blown out suddenly, like a bunch of geysers. Each must have had a closely related predecessor, which must have had its own predecessors: Darwinian evolution is gradual, step-by-step. All those predecessors must have come together, further back, into a series of branches leading down to the (long ago) trunk.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
A nuclear submarine is powered by a nuclear reactor. It has never been observed to be be powered by peat blocks. We know peat is not very concentrated or energy-dense, and we can know the volume and weight of the peat you would have to store onboard in order to operate the submarine. Once you realize the engineering doesn't work, you have disproved the Peat Propulsion Theory.
It is falsifiable. Let us observe a nuclear submarine being powered by peat, and you have falsified my theory.
A relevant bit: no one has ever seen a usable protein formed by random mutation.
If it hasn't been observed --- and the math just doesn't work ---
And when you reproduce two such over-sized ponies do you get an oversized pony or just a pony?
Perhaps when you need an operation you will seek out a computer programmer!
Who’s got no biology training? There’s no way any FR folk believe in evolution. I’m not buying that. That’s akin to saying there’s freepers who support Clinton or Bernie or the left in general. It’s just not in the cards, the folks here are too smart.
Punctuated equilibrium...which is also BS
We're seeing it happen right before our eyes in Africa.
See: Under poaching pressure, elephants are evolving to lose their tusks
In this case, evolution is nothing but accidental animal husbandry on the part of the poachers. This sort of environmental influence is no different than any natural one.
Removing the tusked elephants from the breeding population allows the tuskless genetic trait to become more dominant.
IIRC even Darwin himself first said that evolution cannot explain one species changing into another.
Evolution does occur on a local level - aka adaptation. Breeding is a form of forced evolution as well. Can’t explain how a reptile turned into a bird or a mammal, or how a monkey became a man, though. That God created the basic animals and us and turned us all loose to breed and adapt makes a whole lot more sense.
He saw the light...nice...
Occam’s razor: God did it.
Thought and practice are not the same, but you know that.
Intelligent design is scientific and self evident.
I only referred to his mangy appearance. It had nothing to do with wealth, status or his job.
Actually, no.
Evolution theory does not claim to address the origin of life.
What hardset limitation are you speaking of?
What part of quantum theory aligns with common sense?
That animals can separate enough to become completely different species.
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.