stevestory
Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote | 8
nkendallJune 29, 2016 at 11:16 am
Well the horse has already left the barn regardless of the outcome of this symposium. At the risk of being labeled a “quote minor…”
You have Denis Nobel on record saying:
“All the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproven.”
You have James Shapiro in the opening statement of his recent book saying:
“Innovation, not selection, is the critical issue in evolutionary change. Without variation and novelty, selection has nothing to act upon. So this book is dedicated to considering the many ways that living organisms actively change themselves. Uncovering the molecular mechanisms by which living organisms modify their genomes is a major accomplishment of late 20th Century molecular biology. Conventional evolutionary theory made the simplifying assumption that inherited novelty was the result of chance or accident.”
Other comments by Shapiro:
“It is difficult (if not impossible) to find a genome change operator that is truly random in its action within the DNA of the cell where it works. All careful studies of mutagenesis find statistically significant non-random patterns of change, and genome sequence studies confirm distinct biases in location of different mobile genetic elements.”
Shapiro asked rhetorically:
“Do the sequences of contemporary genomes fit the predictions of change by “numerous, successive, slight variations,” as Darwin stated, or do they contain evidence of other, more abrupt processes, as numerous other thinkers had asserted? The data are overwhelmingly in favor of the saltationist school that postulated major genomic changes at key moments in evolution.”
More Shapiro:
“Natural genetic engineering generates different kinds of variation from those produced by classical mutations, one gene at a time. Rearrangements can take place at multiple locations at once and shuffle entire domains from one protein to another, producing novel combinations quickly and abruptly, perhaps even purposefully.”
Act “abruptly and even purposefully”…get that.
And here Shapiro comments on the slim evidence (Luria and Delbrück experiments) that “mutations” are random:
“Given the lethal nature of the selecting virus Luria and Delbrück used, there was in fact no other possible outcome. Infection was invariably lethal, and only preexisting resistant mutants could survive. Nonetheless, this experiment was cited for over six decades as proof that virus infection could not induce a genetic change to resistance. One has to be careful with the word ‘proof’ in science. I always said that conventional evolutionists were hanging a very heavy coat on a very thin peg in the way they cited Luria and Delbrück. The peg broke in the first decade of this century.”
Eugene Koonin:
“Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. …. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic super-groups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal “types” seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate “grades” or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.”
Koonin then goes on to defend these statements in his paper.
I suppose neo-Darwinists can imagine that these folks are just wrong despite the long list of references to recent scientific research they cite. But even if unaware of any of these comments, anyone equipped with common sense and intuition could discern three clear trends indicating that neo-Darwinism is wrong: 1) Far greater levels of complexity—“astounding,” “astonishing,” “unimagined complexity”—2) this far greater complexity occurring over very brief periods of time and 3) this greater complexity occurring over brief periods of time and happening repeatedly. There is a pattern here, a repeated pattern of rapid accrual of the same types of complexity is a signature of design, not chance.
And this is to say nothing about the vast quantities of novel complex specified information exhibited by the human mind in dreams and thought streams, not to mention during near death experiences where the content is ineffable and when the brain doesn’t even appear to be fully functioning. And all this rich novel, complex information arises instantaneously and spontaneously in the mind (not strictly the brain).
It is all over my materialist friends who may be listening in. Here is my advice to you…get on the right side of history. Don’t be one of those persons who embraces a theory that is becoming a fossil of a bygone age till its last breath. Open your minds…and your hearts. Biological sciences have been in the dark ages for the past century…time for a renaissance, an enlightenment—“design” will be the watchword of the 21st century. And in the end it will have been all these fine folks on this forum that will have ushered in such an enlightenment. |
derp
And if you think that didn't demolishviscerate Darwin, we'll find some quotes about "mind-blowing complexity" and surely That'll be Game Over!
|
