Evolutionists retreating from the arena of science

CMI ^ | December 1, 2009 | Dave Woetzel

[GodGunsGuts]

Evolutionists retreating from the arena of science

--snip--

Today, the Darwinian scientific consensus persists within almost every large university and governmental institution. But around the middle of the 20th century an interesting new trend emerged and has since become increasingly established. Evolutionary theorists have been forced, step by step, to steadily retreat from the evidence in the field. Some of the evidences mentioned earlier in this article were demonstrated to be frauds and hoaxes. Other discoveries have been a blow to the straightforward expectations and predictions of evolutionists. Increasingly, they have been forced to tack ad hoc mechanisms onto Darwin’s theory to accomodate the evidence. Their retreat to unfalsifiable positions is now evident in every arena where they once triumphed. Let us examine how Darwinian theorists have moved from concrete predictions and scientifically observable supporting evidences to metaphysical positions in several key fields of research...

[allmendream]

You are delusional if you think the quotes you supplied have anything to do with the gravity from the “rest of the universe”.

I am not ignoring the gravity of the “rest of the universe”, indeed the gravity of our galactic system moves our Sun around the galactic center. It is YOU who are ignoring the gravity of the “rest of the universe” to support your absurd model.

You hold up Einsteins name as a talisman for Geocentricism, then admit that he was NOT a Geocentrist. Do you really think you have thought through the consequences of general relativity better than Einstein?

Once again, it is not my philosophy that the gravitational attraction between the Sun and the Earth causes an orbital acceleration on the Earth, it is BASIC PHYSICS.

But basic physics is obviously well beyond your understanding.

[GourmetDan]

What we note overall from your efforts is how you continually reduce your comments on your failure to supply evidence beyond 'putatative suggestions' for the claims you initially made wrt human chromosome 2 and turn it to a discussion of geocentrism. This is a consistent tangent you take when you cannot support your claims.

"You are delusional if you think the quotes you supplied have anything to do with the gravity from the “rest of the universe”."

Clearly you don't understand what those scientists are saying and your comment turns on your personal definition of the phrase 'anything to do with'. Ellis, in particular, says it very clearly below and any model that is not geokinetic must include the gravity of the rest of the universe. You simply lack the ability to understand what is being said.

"I am not ignoring the gravity of the “rest of the universe”, indeed the gravity of our galactic system moves our Sun around the galactic center. It is YOU who are ignoring the gravity of the “rest of the universe” to support your absurd model."

You are ignoring the gravity of the rest of the universe. The gravity of our galactic system is not the same as the gravity of the rest of the universe and your attempt to imply such is obvious. Geocentrism includes the gravity of the rest of the universe, geokineticism ignores it and focuses on the earth-sun CG.

"You hold up Einsteins name as a talisman for Geocentricism, then admit that he was NOT a Geocentrist. Do you really think you have thought through the consequences of general relativity better than Einstein?"

Nope, I quote from Einstein, Born, Hoyle and Ellis. Men who understood GR and the competing models and made informed statements of the equivalence of geocentrism and geokineticism under GR. Your attempt to introduce belief into only one side of the debate is noted but disingenuous.

As Ellis notes, "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

" Once again, it is not my philosophy that the gravitational attraction between the Sun and the Earth causes an orbital acceleration on the Earth, it is BASIC PHYSICS. But basic physics is obviously well beyond your understanding."

No, your philosophy is that you can ignore the gravity of the rest of the universe and focus on the earth-sun CG and apply basic physics to that. The geocentrist position is confirmed by the quotes of Einstein, Born, Hoyle and Ellis and says that geocentrists can do the same thing using the gravity of the entire universe. This is obviously beyond your ability to comprehend what the men I quote were saying.

[allmendream]

The gravity of the “rest of the universe” couldn't possibly move the Sun, without also causing motion of the Earth. The galactic core doesn't circle the Earth with a 365 day orbit, neither could its gravity move the MASSIVE Sun while leaving the Earth motionless. F=m*a. Basic physics. Nothing “philosophical” about it.

And I supported my claims about chromosomes, with a scientific source that said pretty much exactly what I had said. You said ‘wasn't peer reviewed’. I pointed out to your obtuseness that there were peer reviewed references backing up their claims. You pulled “putative” and paraded it around, displaying your own ignorance.

But go ahead and take the subject back to chromosomes, as you couldn't possibly embarrass yourself further with physics.

[BroJoeK]

from post #302: "You excised the portion saying that they compared one percent of the total respective genomes."

But I also pointed out it was a more-or-less random comparison that produced 98% without indels and 95% counting the indels.

Do you know there have been more recent full-genome comparisons?
What do you suppose they found?

"WASHINGTON, Wed., Aug. 31, 2005 - The first comprehensive comparison of the genetic blueprints of humans and chimpanzees shows our closest living relatives share perfect identity with 96 percent of our DNA sequence, an international research consortium reported today."

So now, tell us all again, pal: what exactly is your problem here?

[GourmetDan]

"The gravity of the “rest of the universe” couldn't possibly move the Sun, without also causing motion of the Earth. The galactic core doesn't circle the Earth with a 365 day orbit, neither could its gravity move the MASSIVE Sun while leaving the Earth motionless. F=m*a. Basic physics. Nothing “philosophical” about it."

No one has claimed any of the things you claim above. You simply don't understand the models. Pure philosophy as Ellis noted.

"And I supported my claims about chromosomes, with a scientific source that said pretty much exactly what I had said. You said ‘wasn't peer reviewed’. I pointed out to your obtuseness that there were peer reviewed references backing up their claims. You pulled “putative” and paraded it around, displaying your own ignorance."

evolutionpages.com is not what I would call a 'scientific source' although you try to claim that it is. It is apologetics pure and simple. Your confusion could not be more profound.

Your peer-reviewed source stated: "...the precise nature of this putative fusion is unknown..."

"putative" definition -

1 : commonly accepted or supposed

2 : assumed to exist or to have existed

From the article: "...suggests that telomeres, the extreme ends of chromosomes, may have been involved in this [putatative] fusion."

"suggests" definition -

"to mention or imply as a possibility"

From the article:

"Normally, telomeres form a dynamic buffer against loss of internal sequence and prevent chromosomes from fusing."

"The telomere-telomere fusion at region 2q13 must have been accompanied or followed by inactivation or elimination of one of the ancestral centromeres, as well as by events that stabilize the fusion point."

Oops. Multiple assumed putative events required to support the initial assumed putative event. The inverted arrangement of the TTAGGG array and the adjacent sequences are 'similar to' sequences found at present-day human telomeres and are offered as evidence to a putative event that telomeres are designed to resist.

Then we read:

"These data, along with the observations of others (17, 22), suggest that the terminal regions of human chromosomes are dynamic structures, from which stretches of sequence are gained and lost at a relatively high frequency."

Therefore, more cherry-picking of data is needed to support the initial, putative assumption.

And you haven't even begun to support your claim that "the DNA shows the same genes lining up".

"But go ahead and take the subject back to chromosomes, as you couldn't possibly embarrass yourself further with physics."

We already see that you claim apologetics as a 'scientific source', that you accept a speculative paper as 'truth' because it is peer-reviewed, that you can't substantiate your claim that "the DNA shows the same genes lining up" and that you can't understand Einstein, Born, Hoyle and Ellis wrt the implications of GR for geocentrism vs geokineticism. By all means, continue to embarrass yourself for all to see.

[allmendream]

YOU claimed that the gravity of the “rest of the universe” could account for the Sun orbiting the Earth. That is about all you will say on the subject. When I bring up that it is impossible you say ‘I didn't say that’.

Laughably inept.

GRAVITY moves the Earth around the Sun.

Creationists indulge in apologetics. Biologists do science.

My source was a scientific source that had, despite your obtuse inability to notice, BACKED their claims with peer reviewed literature. That WAS the standard you set you, one you curiously have repeatedly FAILED to live up to yourself. Where is your peer reviewed scientific literature to show that what the peer reviewed scientific literature my source referenced was incorrect?

YOU HAVE NOTHING!

But I laugh at your incompetence.

[GourmetDan]

"YOU claimed that the gravity of the “rest of the universe” could account for the Sun orbiting the Earth. That is about all you will say on the subject. When I bring up that it is impossible you say ‘I didn't say that’. Laughably inept. GRAVITY moves the Earth around the Sun."

Nope, you simply demonstrate your inability to understand the models. You are the only one who insists that the sun must orbit the earth. The geocentric model is simply that the earth is at the center of the universe, hence the term geocentric. I never said that the sun orbits the earth. That is just your gross incompetence showing.

"Creationists indulge in apologetics. Biologists do science."

Ah, what a gross lack of critical-thinking skills. Define terms such that it is impossible for your position to engage in apologetics and think it true. Wow.

"My source was a scientific source that had, despite your obtuse inability to notice, BACKED their claims with peer reviewed literature. That WAS the standard you set you, one you curiously have repeatedly FAILED to live up to yourself."

So, 'Alec's Evolution Pages' is a scientific source and not apologetics? Wow! You did notice that good old Alec himself wrote the article you claim as your 'scientific source', didn't you? Sheesh...

"Where is your peer reviewed scientific literature to show that what the peer reviewed scientific literature my source referenced was incorrect?"

I used the source you provided to show that you claim a spectacularly speculative paper as though it is proof of your bizarre belief. You really think that if you post a source it can't be used to show your conclusions about that source are wrong? Wow! Your extreme lack of critical-thinking skills is definitely showing more and more. Keep talking, please.

"YOU HAVE NOTHING!"

Oh, shrill screaming now counts as debate? Your inability to think critically wrt your beliefs just becomes more and more obvious.

"But I laugh at your incompetence."

Fools laugh at that they cannot understand and will not admit.

[BenKenobi]

“At the protein level, 29 percent of genes code for the same amino sequences in chimps and humans.”

Somehow you also missed this portion.

TTFN.

[BroJoeK]

"Somehow you also missed this portion."

Oh? And how much did you miss?

"The consortium found that the chimp and human genomes are very similar and encode very similar proteins. The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence. At the protein level, 29 percent of genes code for the same amino sequences in chimps and humans. In fact, the typical human protein has accumulated just one unique change since chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.

"To put this into perspective, the number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is approximately 60 times less than that seen between human and mouse and about 10 times less than between the mouse and rat. On the other hand, the number of genetic differences between a human and a chimp is about 10 times more than between any two humans."

Which part of this do you dispute? ;-)

[BenKenobi]

None of it. It’s good to see that the similarities are as usual headlined, and that the vast sea of differences are minimised.

[allmendream]

“Heliocentrism always ignores the rest of the universe while geocentrism always includes it. Your example above shows how the rest of the universe is ignored by focusing on the sun/earth CG. Consider that the solar system is a mere point when compared to the universe. Then consider that it does not take much gravitational imbalance in the universe to move the CG from somewhere inside the sun (for heliocentrism) to inside the earth (for geocentrism).”

Unless you are too obtuse to understand your own writing; this is you suggesting that a “gravitational imbalance” when considering the “rest of the universe” would cause the Sun to orbit the Earth.

Why say it and then deny you said it?

Are you trying to sound stupid?

[GourmetDan]

"“Heliocentrism always ignores the rest of the universe while geocentrism always includes it. Your example above shows how the rest of the universe is ignored by focusing on the sun/earth CG. Consider that the solar system is a mere point when compared to the universe. Then consider that it does not take much gravitational imbalance in the universe to move the CG from somewhere inside the sun (for heliocentrism) to inside the earth (for geocentrism).”

That's correct.

"Unless you are too obtuse to understand your own writing; this is you suggesting that a “gravitational imbalance” when considering the “rest of the universe” would cause the Sun to orbit the Earth."

I believe you have adequately demonstrated your own lack of understanding. The CG for the universe is centered on the earth. Not the CG for the earth-sun. This seems to be your main difficulty in comprehension. You twist that into the claim that some force must drag the sun around the earth. That simply isn't the claim.

" Why say it and then deny you said it? Are you trying to sound stupid?"

I didn't say it. As I have said multiple times, you simply don't understand the model.

[allmendream]

If the center of gravity, due to your “imbalance” by factoring in the “rest of the universe” is causing the Sun to go around the Earth; then it is the GRAVITY of the “rest of the universe” causing the Sun to move around the Earth.

Of course the Sun does NOT move around the Earth; the Gravity between the Earth and the Sun causes an orbital acceleration upon the Earth. Basic physics.

[GourmetDan]

"If the center of gravity, due to your “imbalance” by factoring in the “rest of the universe” is causing the Sun to go around the Earth; then it is the GRAVITY of the “rest of the universe” causing the Sun to move around the Earth."

Ok, then I guess you won't be claiming that some fictitious force must magically be involved anymore, eh?

"Of course the Sun does NOT move around the Earth; the Gravity between the Earth and the Sun causes an orbital acceleration upon the Earth. Basic physics."

Actually, under GR as explained by Hoyle; geocentrism and geokineticism are "entirely equivalent from a physical point of view". Of course, when you invoke 'basic physics' as an argument you fall back into the trap of focusing on the earth-sun CG and ignoring the rest of the universe again, as I have warned you about innumerable times now. The 'basic physics' works just fine for geocentrism under GR as explained by Einstein, Born, Hoyle and Ellis. No 'special physics' is involved, only differing philosophical positions.

As Ellis says, "For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations."

You cannot say scientifically that the earth is not at the center of the universe, i.e., geocentrism. You cannot say scientifically that the earth orbits the sun as the solar-system orbits the galactic center or whatever claim you want to make. The 'basic physics' are the same. The earth appears to be at rest in the universe. You can only make that statement as a statement of philosophical preference by ignoring the effect of the rest of the universe and focusing on the earth-sun CG. The statements from Einstein, Born, Hoyle and Ellis are telling you that you can only do that as a philosophical choice, not a scientific observation. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand.

But I notice that, once again, you have stopped trying to defend your putative chromosome fusion claim and the absurd statement that "All things in science are “putative”" and your further absurd statement that "the DNA shows the same genes lining up". Did 'Alec's Evolution Pages' article written by Alec himself not work out for you as a 'scientific source'?

[allmendream]

So now once again you ARE saying that it is the gravity of the “rest of the universe” causing the Sun to move around the Earth.

That is impossible. The gravity to cause the Sun to move around the Earth in such a way would sweep up the Earth like a leaf in a storm. Absolutely impossible.

Now are you going to deny that you said that the gravity from the “rest of the universe” is causing the Sun to move around the Earth again? Come on... You know you want to!

What a infantile and ridiculous argument. ‘I didn't say it! OK I did say it. You just don't understand!’

How laughably inept.

[BroJoeK]

"None of it. It’s good to see that the similarities are as usual headlined, and that the vast sea of differences are minimised."

I'd call your "vast sea" a rather small pond. But I suppose all of that is a matter of perspective.

After all, no one has ever said that chimps ARE human, though clearly any number of humans seem astonishingly ape-like.
Might we agree at least, that these usually end up on the more liberal side of the political equasion? ;-) ! ...peace?

[GourmetDan]

"So now once again you ARE saying that it is the gravity of the “rest of the universe” causing the Sun to move around the Earth. That is impossible. The gravity to cause the Sun to move around the Earth in such a way would sweep up the Earth like a leaf in a storm. Absolutely impossible."

Not according to Einstein, Born, Hoyle and Ellis.

"Now are you going to deny that you said that the gravity from the “rest of the universe” is causing the Sun to move around the Earth again? Come on... You know you want to!"

I know that you are unable to understand the model.

" What a infantile and ridiculous argument. ‘I didn't say it! OK I did say it. You just don't understand!’ How laughably inept."

You don't understand what Einstein, Born, Hoyle and Ellis are saying. Nothing I can do about that.

But I notice that, once again, you have stopped trying to defend your putative chromosome fusion claim and the absurd statement that "All things in science are “putative”" and your further absurd statement that "the DNA shows the same genes lining up". Did 'Alec's Evolution Pages' article written by Alec himself not work out for you as a 'scientific source'?

[allmendream]

One thing Einstein is NOT saying and NEVER said, was that the Sun orbited the Earth, or that the gravity “imbalance” of the “rest of the universe” could cause such a thing. But apparently you cannot understand that.

Where is your peer reviewed literature to back up your claims about this putative gravity “imbalance” that would cause the Sun to orbit the Earth?

[BenKenobi]

I don’t consider sharing 20 percent of protein coding to be very ‘similar’ to one another at all.

[GourmetDan]

"One thing Einstein is NOT saying and NEVER said, was that the Sun orbited the Earth, or that the gravity “imbalance” of the “rest of the universe” could cause such a thing. But apparently you cannot understand that."

Again, taking their statements together Einstein, Born, Hoyle and Ellis say that geocentrism and geokineticism are equivalent under GR. Apparently you cannot understand that.

"Where is your peer reviewed literature to back up your claims about this putative gravity “imbalance” that would cause the Sun to orbit the Earth?"

According to the statements of Einstein, Born, Hoyle and Ellis geocentrism and geokineticism are equivalent as CS, physically and observationally under GR. You would need to falsify GR to have a valid point. You might as well use "Alec's Evolution Pages" and articles written by 'Alec' as a 'scientific source'.

But you've already been there and done that.