Darwin’s Predictions (falsified)

Darwin's Predictions ^ | Cornelius G. Hunter, Ph.D

[GodGunsGuts]

Failed expectations are not necessarily a problem for a theory. [1] But what if fundamental predictions are consistently falsified? As we shall see this is the case with Darwin’s theory of evolution...

[tacticalogic]

Pick your target, personlize it, and polarize it.

[tacticalogic]

Nah, just think warm thoughts.

Hellfire and brimstone?

[count-your-change]

This is (lower your voice in respect) a SCIENCE thread so no allusion or thoughts of religion are permitted.

Now, I have some mathematical communication science to do, preparing a document for review by the federal government. They've asked for some of my data that has been peer reviewed and possibly ready for official acceptance.

And I don't offer any obscene gestures! (see #219)

[Coyoteman]

And I don't offer any obscene gestures! (see #219)

You're either being an ass or are truly uninformed. Or possibly both.

In the old days, back in the early grades, when one had to visit the restroom one was required to display one finger or two thus indicating which function was desired.

I have no idea why the nuns wanted such information, but it indeed was required and is indelibly imprinted on my memory (and my knuckles).

[count-your-change]

Now, now, be nice, remember there are rules here. I would apologize for mistaking your meaning but after your last comment.....ahh..no and no.

I'm going back to preparing some important documents (doing my taxes) for data review (checking arithmetic) by the an agency (IRS) of the federal government.

[CottShop]

[[What’s wrong with the peppered moth? ]]

If you don’;t know by now, that just hsows you’re not aware of just how false your claim that TOE is fact really is.

[[Creationists hate Archaeopteryx because it is a great example of one of those transitionals they insist does not exist.]]

No we don’t- we love birds

[CottShop]

I hadn’t seen that before- pretty much puts the kobosh to the macroevolutionary claim that ‘calculations (mathematical statistics against the probability of just one ‘positive mutaiton’ happening) are irrelevent because evolution isn’t linear’- To even get a minimal ‘fitness’ would take trillions of steady attemps for trillions of years- And this is for just one single fitness sequence- Now let’s consider that htere must have been literally trillions of changes within species IF macroevolution is even to be concidered for the sake of argument, and I think we start to see just how really remote macroevolution truly is

But... but... but... there’s still that remote glimmer of hope lol (After all, someone always wins the lottery, right? Woops- those odds are very very small compared to the odds of just one fitness sequence- Whiel hte lottry odds are about 1 in 80 million if you have 56 numbers- this is just a drop in the bucket compared to hte odds against even just one fitness sequence arising from a mutation- the odds against it happening are so mind boggling astronomical, that it is unreasonable to think that even one fitness sequence could occure- it’s impossible, let alone trillions of like changes taking place in millions of species.)

This is just one of hte very serious problems for macroevolution- htere are several others- but by golly ‘if htere’s a chance- given enough time- it ‘might’ occure’.

However, here we find that it’s not billions of years it woudl take, but rather trillions- Guess macroevolution is goign to have to issue a revised time sheet, and use dating methods that go back older than 6000 years with any sort of accuracy to measure these ancient critters

[CottShop]

[[There is no cogent explanation for the nested hierarchies observed from endogenous retroviral DNA sequences other than common descent.]]

Sur4 there is- you simply refuse to accept it- We’ve been over htis very topic numerous times here on FR and htere is a perfectly logical reason why we WOULD see common retro-virus’ in both species- to save you soem time, I’ll simply give you the clue here- it’s called ‘preferred insertion points which are common to species of common design’ These virii showed a preference for similiar insertion points, and this is NO surprise when concidering the two species are similiar.

Every other oen of your points has also been discussed at length here on FR and has been shown to be innacurate claims-

There are several hyothesis for starlight, and also for redshifts and curved spacve and time- Tell us, which one is correct?

Atomic decay is based on measurements by instruments that MUST ASSUME stuff abotu hte past- don’t pretend otherwise. IF you have a bleeif one way or hte other- fine- but don’t tell us these dates prove anything- they don’t- they are nothign but biased opinions on the matter based on assumptions which can neither be proved, shown tested nor examined’

There has been no ‘molecular evolution’ in the lab- ALL there has been has been molecular MICROEvoluytionary change- Are you tryign to do somethign that even these scientists studying them wouldn’t do? Are you goign to assert that microevolution is macroeovlution? Because hte two issues are VERY different matters- speciation is NOT MACROEvolution-

Actually NO- all evidence does not point ‘conclusively- there are numerous evidneces that point in the other direction, and those that ‘look like’ they poihnt to old age are simply based on opinions- NOT conclusive evidneces- don’t try to pass off opinion as ‘conclusive evidnece’

[valkyry1]

There’s more than five evo frauds out there by any standard except the one in your mind.

[Citizen Blade]

There’s more than five evo frauds out there by any standard except the one in your mind.

Well, then, you should be able to easily provide examples.

[allmendream]

If you infect one hundred cells from the same origin with retrovirus you will almost certainly get one hundred UNIQUE insertion sites.

This is why “gene therapy” using retrovirus is a problem, there is no way to predict accurately where it will insert, and its preference to insert in non histone bound (actively transcribed) DNA makes it more likely to insert into something you needed (possibly an oncogene that by disabling you can start up a cancer).

Simply put “preferential insertion” is not a valid explanation for even the identical PRESENCE of endogenous retroviral sequences in related species, it doesn't even ATTEMPT to explain the nested hierarchies of similarity and differences.

Several half assed explanations for starlight that no two creationists can agree upon, and have no mechanism to agree upon, all trying to fit an old an ancient universe into a few thousand year old box. Moreover such an “aged” universe posits a creator (I wouldn't call such a capricious entity God) that is a liar. The light from a dying star one hundred million light years away is the record of the death of a star that never actually existed if the universe is only a few thousand years old.

The assumption of atomic decay is that the fundamentals of the universe are constant. There is an observed rate of decay, and the only assumption is that the basic principles of electromagnetism and the strong force have not changed in the last few thousand years.

“Micro” evolution is also “Macro” evolution. Your claim is like saying ‘Geologists show micro-errosion and can measure it and predict its rate, but micro-errosion cannot explain macro-errosion like the Grand Canyon’. Yes it can, yes it does, the measured rate of change in both evolution and erosion easily explain the observed change in disparate species and major geological features.

[CottShop]

[[“Micro” evolution is also “Macro” evolution. Your claim is like saying ‘Geologists show micro-errosion and can measure it and predict its rate, but micro-errosion cannot explain macro-errosion like the Grand Canyon’.]]

This is a rediculous statement that has NOTHING to do with living organisms and the process of genetic change-

[[This is why “gene therapy” using retrovirus is a problem, there is no way to predict accurately where it will insert,]]

Yes there is- Certain viruses have preferential insertion points- this is a verifiable fact

[[Simply put “preferential insertion” is not a valid explanation for even the identical PRESENCE of endogenous retroviral sequences in related species, it doesn’t even ATTEMPT to explain the nested hierarchies of similarity and differences.]]

Yes it is- you obviously have not studied this issue

[[Several half assed explanations for starlight that no two creationists can agree upon, and have no mechanism to agree upon, all trying to fit an old an ancient universe into a few thousand year old box.]]

As compared to what? Several half asses old age explanations that scientists can not agree on? The rest of your comment is nothign but biased bloviating.

You are ignoring the assumptions driving atomic decay- while it’s fine for you to voice an opinion- let’s not pretend your opinion is ‘established fact’ when it isn’t

[allmendream]

It is exactly analogous. The “micro” erosion measured by geologists show that the Grand Canyon (a “macro” erosion feature) could have been formed by this “micro” erosion over many many years.

Similarly the “micro” evolution measured by biologists show that disparate species could have easily differentiated over a particular amount of time given that measured rate of divergence.

Preferential insertion points is like saying that people prefer to move into cities rather than anywhere over the entire geological area. It doesn't tell you WHAT city the ‘immigrants’ will move into and goes nowhere to explaining how they all seemed to wind up at the exact same locations in similar species.

I have studied the issue. I have taken entire courses in Molecular Evolution. It is you who have not studied and do not understand the subject.

No “explanation” is needed for deducing that the light from an object one hundred million light years away was in transit one hundred million years, and all serious astronomers agree on this (unlike Creationists, Scientists have a mechanism for separating valid arguments from invalid ones). It is a simple calculation, an “explanation” is only needed is your a priori commitment is to a young universe and then you have to once again start monkeying around with the physical constants of the universe in order to massage the data into whatever pet age the creationists pet interpretation demands.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

The evidence that evos use to support evolution is the same evidence that creationists use. It's not the physical evidence that's in question (outside of frauds) but the interpretation of that evidence.

Except that in the creationist case it's more like "explain away" than "interpret." The author of the article posted at the top of this thread got one thing right: simpler explanations are better. As allmendream pointed out, the old earth + evolution theory embraces what we see in the stars, in the rocks, in the fossils, and in the cells. The YEC approach, on the other hand, has to find a separate explanation for why each of those varies from what we see going on today. And none of those explanations have anything to do with each other, except that they're all required to make the Biblical account literally true. Those are the epicycles in this analogy, not the relatively minor tweaks to the ToE due to new scientific discoveries.

[CottShop]

Half-Assed ‘explanation’ for hte problem of radiation IF the big bang took place

“OUR universe appears to be unfathomably uniform. Look across space from one edge of the visible universe to the other, and you’ll see that the microwave background radiation filling the cosmos is at the same temperature everywhere. That may not seem surprising until you consider that the two edges are nearly 28 billion light years apart and our universe is only 14 billion years old.

Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so there is no way heat radiation could have travelled between the two horizons to even out the hot and cold spots created in the big bang and leave the thermal equilibrium we see now.

This “horizon problem” is a big headache for cosmologists, so big that they have come up with some pretty wild solutions. “Inflation”, for example.

You can solve the horizon problem by having the universe expand ultra-fast for a time, just after the big bang, blowing up by a factor of 1050 in 10-33 seconds. But is that just wishful thinking? “Inflation would be an explanation if it occurred,” says University of Cambridge astronomer Martin Rees. The trouble is that no one knows what could have made that happen, but see Inside inflation: after the big bang.

So, in effect, inflation solves one mystery only to invoke another. A variation in the speed of light could also solve the horizon problem - but this too is impotent in the face of the question “why?” In scientific terms, the uniform temperature of the background radiation remains an anomaly.”

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600

Woops- Seems you’re appelaing to yet more ASSUMPTIONS and claiming htey are ‘established ‘fact’- It seems Big Bangers appeal to a time hwen hte speed of light was faster in the past too- Hmmmmm- interesting indeed! When YEC’ers do the same- they are called nutjobs, but when OE’ers do so, it’s called ‘science’?

There are several perfectly reasonable explanations for Starlight which have scientific support- whether you choose to ignore them or not has no bearign on whether they are reasonable or not. Again, you’re welcome to your opinion, but again, let’s not pretend your bias for one explanation is superior or more an ‘established fact’ when they clearly are not-

[allmendream]

And the fact that if the universe is only a few thousand years old than the record of starlight of dying stars is all a lie, as those ancient stars never actually existed?

Christians who know and understand science know that it speaks to the glory of God.

Christians who are slaves to a “young earth” interpretation have to proclaim that is is all a trick and a lie.

[valkyry1]

Actually 3 separate frauds came out of the German Professor;
Hahnhöfersand Man, Binshof-Speyer Woman, and Paderborn-Sande Man.

[Elsiejay]

Were I to convert to the evolutionist faith, likely I would rely for philosophical/spiritual backing in part on Richard Lewontin’s expression of faith in naturalistic materialism, as stated in “The New York Review,” January 1997, to wit: “We take the side of science (i.e. naturalistic materialism, my interpretation) in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior . . . commitment to materialism.
“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but . . . that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to . . . produce material explanations, no matter how counter-inituitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.”
Thus, a faith driven belief system, every bit as much so as is my own faith in a Creating, Sustaining, Judging, Forgiving, Redeeming and Saving God.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Were I to convert to the evolutionist faith, likely I would rely for philosophical/spiritual backing in part on Richard Lewontin’s expression of faith in naturalistic materialism, as stated in “The New York Review,” January 1997, to wit: “We take the side of science (i.e. naturalistic materialism, my interpretation) in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior . . . commitment to materialism. “It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but . . . that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to . . . produce material explanations, no matter how counter-inituitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.” Thus, a faith driven belief system, every bit as much so as is my own faith in a Creating, Sustaining, Judging, Forgiving, Redeeming and Saving God.

Lewontin is a communist. His 'theory of everything' is dialectical materialism.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Gee, it all sounds so harmless, so innocent, so very forgivable, almost laudable, really.

Here's an interesting fraud: Bathybius