Tuesday, July 30, 2019

Has Darwinism really failed?

Yes. Next question.... I've demonstrated the mathematical impossibility of evolution by natural selection and others are now hitting it increasingly hard from a variety of other angles:
Has Darwinism really failed? Peter Robinson discusses it with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer, who have raised doubts about Darwin’s theory in their two books and essay, respectively The Deniable Darwin, Darwin’s Doubt, and “Giving Up Darwin” (published in the Claremont Review of Books).

Robinson asks them to convince him that the term “species” has not been defined by the authors to Darwin’s disadvantage. Gelernter replies to this and explains, as he expressed in his essay, that he sees Darwin’s theory as beautiful (which made it difficult for him to give it up): “Beauty is often a telltale sign of truth. Beauty is our guide to the intellectual universe—walking beside us through the uncharted wilderness, pointing us in the right direction, keeping us on track—most of the time.” Gelernter notes that there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether Darwin can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. Meyer explains Darwinism as a comprehensive synthesis, which gained popularity for its appeal. Meyer also mentions that one cannot disregard that Darwin’s book was based on the facts present in the 19th century.

Robinson then asks the panel whether Darwin’s theory of gradual evolution is contradicted by the explosion of fossil records in the Cambrian period, when there was a sudden occurrence of many species over the span of approximately seventy million years (Meyer’s noted that the date range for the Cambrian period is actually narrowing). Meyer replies that even population genetics, the mathematical branch of Darwinian theory, has not been able to support the explosion of fossil records during the Cambrian period, biologically or geologically.

Robinson than asks about Darwin’s main problem, molecular biology, to which Meyer explains, comparing it to digital world, that building a new biological function is similar to building a new code, which Darwin could not understand in his era. Berlinski does not second this and states that the cell represents very complex machinery, with complexities increasing over time, which is difficult to explain by a theory. Gelernter throws light on this by giving an example of a necklace on which the positioning of different beads can lead to different permutations and combinations; it is really tough to choose the best possible combination, more difficult than finding a needle in a haystack. He seconds Meyer’s statement that it was impossible for Darwin to understand that in his era, since the math is easy but he did not have the facts. Meyer further explains how difficult it is to know what a protein can do to a cell, the vast combinations it can produce, and how rare is the possibility of finding a functional protein. He then talks about the formation of brand-new organisms, for which mutation must affect genes early in the life form’s development in order to control the expression of other genes as the organism grows.
Perhaps the most important thing to keep in mind is that TENS is not even remotely scientific. It's never been more than an unfalsifiable hypothesis. All of the science related to it is circular. Darwinism is not merely outdated and incorrect, it is completely useless for biological engineering and wildly misleading when it is utilized to help interpret the past. (See: evolutionary psychology)

Labels: ,


Blogger Amy July 30, 2019 8:15 AM  

***sigh of great length***

I know so many TENS True Believers, and they cannot think beyond black and white. It’s either Darwin, or you’re a backwards young earther who still believes in sky daddy.

I wonder, would this change opinions? No, not in the slightest. Is it wrong to give *everyone* an education?

I look at how well orchestrated life is, and I just know that random chance could not have produced this. Can computer code spontaneously self-organize and execute in such a fashion?

Darwinism serves atheists and assorted God deniers. That’s about it.

Blogger MMX2010 July 30, 2019 8:25 AM  

Thank you, Vox, for continuing to discuss this topic. It is very helpful that you distinguish between the fine-tuning of already existing species (evolution) and the emergence of new species from the mutations of old species (evolution).

It's good to see the confusion created by naming two dramatically different concepts with the same word.

Blogger JACIII July 30, 2019 8:26 AM  

They have crawfished to the point of trying to give Darwin credit for noticing breeding as a mechanism of biological change....

City folk.

Blogger Lushtree July 30, 2019 8:30 AM  

"backwards young earther who still believes in sky daddy"

Describes me, at very least. I prefer eyewitness testimony to pseudo-scientific conjecture, and feel no need to not take Genesis more literally than not. It is a perfectly serviceable model that provides more than the Darwinian one, at least.

Blogger Wraithburn July 30, 2019 8:48 AM  


When I was in high school, my Christian biology book stressed the differences between microevolution and macroevolution, the author's preferred terms. We've seen natural selection in action, we've used it to breed dogs and plants. A dog has never turned into a plant.

Conflating the two terms in the mainstream is a deliberate motte and bailey argument to protect the weaknesses of the idea that are now showing to everybody.

Blogger BriarRabbit July 30, 2019 9:09 AM  

"All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it. Not even one mutation has been observed that adds even a little information to the genome." - Dr. Lee Spetner, PhD, Biophysics, John Hopkins

Evolution is a ridiculous myth. It is impossible.

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2019 9:17 AM  

I read a great takedown of Darwin once, I think it may have been in "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist"

The odds of a simple, beneficial mutation - like a single cell spawning a flagella, was on the order of 1/64000. And, in more complex species - like birds, a beneficial mutation would have intermediate steps. Steps that may be harmful, fatal, or even unpleasant enough that breeding wouldn't happen.

Isn't it funny how so much of SCIENCE! is faith. Faith in the false.

Blogger Rek. July 30, 2019 9:18 AM  

Could you explain that last part "wildly misleading when it is utilized to help interpret the past. (See: evolutionary psychology)"?

Blogger Uncle John's Band July 30, 2019 9:21 AM  

"Gelernter replies to this and explains, as he expressed in his essay, that he sees Darwin’s theory as beautiful..."

You can see how fundamentally skewed their worldview is in the reductive notion of "beauty".

But they do love their hermetic systems - upper and lower-case h.

Blogger Sargent.matrim July 30, 2019 9:28 AM  

Stephen Meyer is a brilliant and meticulous writer on this topic. His books are well researched, well written, and thoroughly dismantle evolutionary thinking.

He does some great work on the Bible as well.

Blogger Harris July 30, 2019 9:31 AM  

As a child, it was apparent to me that Evolution was mathematically impossible.

Does that mean that there isn't some level of natural selection that happens? Of course not. If we can breed dogs, horses, livestock, crops etc., it means that nature can be manipulated to some degree. But it doesn't follow that Biological Evolution as taught in schools is a result of these minor variations in nature.

The mathematical probability of Evolution begin true is ZERO. If a grade school child can figure this out, what excuse do professors in college have? The ONLY reason to trust in evolution is that it frees you of accountability to a Creator God. That alone is the motivation to trust in Evolution.

And Mathematics is just one way to prove Evolution is false.

Blogger Flannel Avenger July 30, 2019 9:33 AM  

Addressed about a week ago at MOTW

Blogger Unknownsailor July 30, 2019 9:34 AM  

I came across a recorded video interview of that last week, and was wondering when it would appear on Vox Popoli.

Blogger Clint July 30, 2019 9:34 AM  

It is a great video. Meyer is the only one who would really tackle the metaphysics behind the conversation. The other two see the intellectual realities, but are not yet willing to take that next step.

Blogger Sam Sutherland July 30, 2019 9:40 AM  

It occurred to me that in rejecting God as the creator of the universe, atheists were forced to embrace the opposite of God, a literal Anti-God. If God is infinite order, structure, and law, then the opposite of God is impersonal utter chaos. Chaos: the Anti-God. Order permeates our universe, but since atheists cannot attribute its origin to a deity, they are forced to propose that order was born out of chaos, a chaos so profoundly immense that in one tiny corner of its domain it actually managed to create order(!). This foolishness is like insisting that if you just have a big enough explosion in a brickyard, at least some of the bricks will assemble themselves into a house. Which is sillier: believing in infinite order as a creative force, or believing in infinite chaos and destruction as a creative force?

Blogger Wraithburn July 30, 2019 9:40 AM  


Dr. Hallpike writes extensively on that topic in his book, Ship of Fools. To summarize, they use evolution to make postdictions about the past and then make up "just so" stories about it. These are not falsifiable theories, it is not science.

Besides not being science, consistently these fantasies about the past conflict with what we know anthropologically. For instance, let us say man has a "tool use" brain organ. Suppose one day that an ape clambered down from a tree and used a stick to help get termites for food. He evolves tool use, and is more desirable as a mate from all this food. His genes pass on with tool use winning out over other uses of the brain. The "tool using" center is passed on and takes over, which is why we use tools.

Notice how it is circular. Current conditions are used to pretend something about the past we do not know. Then that fantasy is used as the basis for a series of fanciful steps with no evidence to get back to current conditions, which is then used as proof of correctness! This pattern repeats over and over in the evolutionary psychology community.

Blogger IrishFarmer July 30, 2019 9:46 AM  

William Lane Craig put it well when he said that if evolution happened, the only way it could have happened is by a divine miracle.

Blogger Rek. July 30, 2019 9:47 AM  

Thank you.

Blogger VD July 30, 2019 9:47 AM  

Could you explain that last part "wildly misleading when it is utilized to help interpret the past.

What is difficult to understand? Whenever evolution is used to explain historical events, it invariably proves to be wildly misleading when other, better methods are utilized.

Blogger rumpole5 July 30, 2019 9:50 AM  

Darwinism has not failed any more than Newtonian physics has done. Both men made discoveries that were brilliant in the context of their times and places. And our understanding has moved on from both men's theories. One thing is certain. The origin of the present state of humanity has not been fully explained. It does seem to men however that when our scientists climb up the steep mountain of knowledge, it seems more and more likely that they will find theologians and philosophers waiting for them on the peak of wisdom.

Blogger VD July 30, 2019 9:53 AM  

Darwinism has not failed any more than Newtonian physics has done.

Of course it has. Newtonian physics work, just in a cruder sense than we can now observe. Darwinian evolution by natural selection has never worked at all.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 30, 2019 9:57 AM  

"Darwinism has not failed any more than Newtonian physics has done."

Have to disagree. Newtonian physics are a workable approximation for what Newton delineated them for. Darwinism is not a workable approximation for the vast majority of what Darwin delineated it for.

Blogger areopagus July 30, 2019 9:59 AM  

OK. I'll bite. Undefined jargon: TENS ?????
(Try googling tens)

Blogger Clint July 30, 2019 10:02 AM  

@23, try searching this site. Plenty of examples. Theory of Evolution By Natural Selection.

Blogger MMX2010 July 30, 2019 10:02 AM  

Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

Blogger Sam July 30, 2019 10:11 AM  

High altitude adaption in humans.

That isn't circular. Put crudely, Darwinism is 'if it lets you have more surviving children, it will spread through the population. Now anthropologists are often wrong about how something helps with that since they are leftists and their stock and trade is lies, but that just means they are horrible people, not that evolutionary psychology is impossible.

Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

Blogger VD July 30, 2019 10:13 AM  

not that evolutionary psychology is impossible

The point isn't that it is impossible, it is that it is observably WRONG.

Blogger Calvin809 July 30, 2019 10:14 AM  

But when I went to the Science Museum in MN last weekend they said evolution is a fact backed up by peer reviewed experimental data...

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 30, 2019 10:16 AM  

"That isn't circular."

Yes it is. "Because of our hypothesis, events in the past must have happened this way, thus our hypothesis is proven." is circular.

"Put crudely, Darwinism is 'if it lets you have more surviving children, it will spread through the population."

No, that is natural selection. Darwinism is much wider reaching, adding thing such as Universal Common Descent.

Blogger JovianStorm July 30, 2019 10:25 AM  

What people think of as evolution is really just adaptation to selective pressure, which itself isn't evolution and generation of entirely new species and complex proteins.

I don't trust other scientists who profess zealotry for TENS because they are only believing it to be contrarian and you can't talk sense into a contrarian.

Blogger linesy July 30, 2019 10:28 AM  

Innocent question.Does this not take us back to macro no but micro yes again?. We can see quick mutations in viruses or the loss of unfavourable genes in short order in say butterflies, this would suggest to me that there is some element of 'evolution' without the need for fish to man story arcs

Blogger Wraithburn July 30, 2019 10:31 AM  


That statement on Darwinism is also wrong. Haldane's Dilemma mathematically proves the required birth rates to get *any* mutation spread across an entire population, and it is far, far beyond the birth rates we see.

Blogger David Ray Milton July 30, 2019 10:32 AM  

But, y’all are forgetting that a handicapped faggot said that Darwinism was true in his text to speech!

He was smart. He was a scientist (mic drop).

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2019 10:53 AM  

It doesn't help that most laymen and announcers in the media seem to use the word "evolution" without having much understanding of it at all, and speak of it as though it were an active presence taking action on all species and elements and behaviors to make sure that they act in accordance with the unknown but universal standards of evolutionary imperative. That simply makes no sense in that usage and has nothing to do with the word's intention. Most seem to lack even a basic understanding of what the word means. It has acquired an almost meaningless quality at this point and could just as well be used as a stand-in word for God in the way it is used and thrown around recklessly and with indifference to its purpose.

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2019 11:17 AM  

Meyer is something of a Christian gentleman of the old school and far kinder to his enemies than they are to him.

Darwin, for example, explicitly posed his theory as an attack on the available evidence of his time, claiming that further exploration of the fossil record would support his theory.

169 years later the evidence against even the theoretical possibility of his theory is now so large and so widely spread across so many disciplines that only the determinedly dishonest and willfully ignorant still insist on it. As our host has noted.

Blogger camcleat July 30, 2019 11:20 AM  

"wildly misleading when it is utilized to help interpret the past. (See: evolutionary psychology)"

So glad to see the rug being further pulled out from evolutionary psych. That is one of the most ridiculous of the pop-pseudo-science fields and it has unfortunately really caught on. Far too many people buy into that utter nonsense.

Blogger Mark Stoval July 30, 2019 11:39 AM  

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

And so Michael Behe, biochemical researcher and professor at Lehigh University, did exactly that with his book and his idea of irreducible complexity. Game, set, and match.

Blogger rumpole5 July 30, 2019 11:44 AM  

The model T was a truly revolutionary device that changed the world in many ways. It set us off to where we are now. But, I certainly wouldn't want to trade my contemporary vehicle for a Model T replica with crank and maneto and use it to commute 50 miles every day. Likewise, Darwin's theory that certain races are favored by circumstances, and that this explains the biological species variety we see around us, was revolutionary in its time and got us started thinking about these biological issues in a rational context. VD pretty much demolished it in that context in his book. The problem is that a number of people have taken it out of the rational contex and enshrined it into a religious one. An additional problem is that no one has explained the process by which life came into being in the rational context. It remains a complete mystery and appears to have been some type of design process. If VD would just author another book explaining it all I would be most grateful. For now we are still looking into a mirror darkly.

Blogger P Glenrothes July 30, 2019 11:48 AM  

Those who fail to understand that life is rich with complexity, throw the baby out with the bath water when they talk of science. Bad science, corrupt science, isn't science at all. Science need not be a threat to creationism.

Blogger VD July 30, 2019 11:50 AM  

If VD would just author another book explaining it all I would be most grateful.

Vox wishes he knew. He doesn't. So he doesn't express an opinion on it.

Blogger Newscaper312 July 30, 2019 11:50 AM  

Sorry for length.

A few points...
'Natural selection' *does* work -- in it proper more limited scope. Genetic algorithms in computer science demonstrate this fairly well -- successively using the addition of small random variations then repeatedly filtering against some criteria as a method of finding local optimization solutions without any explicit, imperative plan. So in that regard Dawkins is more right than wrong about Hoyle's 'tornado in a junkyard building a 747' improbability critique, with baby steps rather than all at once being a huge difference.
*But* in CS that has only been show to work in somewhat 'closed' problem space, similar to the way that machine AI has been highly successful only at some hard but still well defined problems (chess, go etc), where defining initial constraints: starting board, legal moves, and end state victory conditions do put a hard boundary on the problem.

So the bigger picture question is TENS inadequacy to explain more macro *creative* processes in the wide open world. That is what Vox's critique addresses. I do note that he does not, at least in this context, question the general age of the earth, or the findings of genetics, or for that matter the notion of common descent itself (general notion of creatures having evolved from earlier forms).

Vox -- Have you read Thomas Nagel or Stuart Kauffmann? I've read summaries of both, and have a couple of their books to read. Nagel is the atheist respected philosopher who stirred the pot a few years ago by saying materialist reductionist neo-Darwinism is grossly inadequate and therefore ultimately wrong. Kauffmann is an agnostic researcher - who is *not* into ID, who has been wrestling with the creative inadequacy of Darwinism as well, and worked on notions of self-organizing systems trying to plug those gaps, and is actually somewhat friendly to religion.

Further aside evolutionary biology as applied to human beings, what I find really fascinating is that when you ignore the leftist misuse of it a lot of the work actually *supports* what traditional religions have to say about human nature, the sexes, even cooperation and morality. Although a bit older now, I highly recommend science writer Matt Ridley's 'The Red Queen' and 'The Origins of Virtue'. The former supports the notion of the human sexual norm as monogamy (with some cheating) vs a gorilla-like alpha takes all polygyny or a bonobo-like free for all. The latter even describes how computer simulations and game theory support the value of limited, sensible forgiveness as part of a more effective strategy.

Blogger Newscaper312 July 30, 2019 11:58 AM  

One more -- I have never seen any proposed explanation, at least at educated layman's level, of how a change in the number of chromosomes could propagate in a sexual species.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 30, 2019 12:32 PM  

"An additional problem is that no one has explained the process by which life came into being in the rational context. It remains a complete mystery and appears to have been some type of design process."

Even a shadowy apprehension of the "toes" of God is a monumental undertaking, and in that it is not soon necessary in this area, likely to be pursued only by someone with a useless compulsive proclivity that would remove from them any understanding they did manage to approach. Take the Gnostics, for example.

I doubt anything in that area will be known until all the foundations necessary for its utilization are nearly laid, if it falls within the purview of man at all.

It is beyond rationality alone, because it necessarily contains motive. Trying to put it purely in rational context is a mistake. Motive is pre-rational.

Blogger Ariadne Umbrella July 30, 2019 12:58 PM  

I don't know who among you talks about this in public with a skeptical audience, but I ask you to continue. When I was in college a chemistry professor invited someone to talk about this to the class- 300+ students at once. A biology professor reacted to this news by running evolution classes prior to this- it was mostly the same students- films about lipid spheres and Haeckel drawings and so on. The class came prepared to heckle the man, to dismiss his arguments, to argue back at him. It must have been a difficult experience for him- even regular professors talk about how afraid they were, presenting their lecture to 300+ students at once, with a small set of students who might talk back.

The university agreed to refund class fees for the entire class, for the entire semester. The professor was a perfectly good professor who presented good lectures, but 18 weeks of regular chemistry was not worth one presentation asking for the students to at least hear the arguments of Intelligent Design or Creationism. a

But- that was the first time a great many people heard these arguments. And even when they didn't immediately agree, they kept playing around with the ideas.

Blogger justaguy July 30, 2019 2:07 PM  

Scientists and mathematicians learned the inadequacies of TENS in the 1950s/1960s and started publishing. Issac Asimov wrote about the problems of TENS in one of his science book paperbacks in the early 1970s, as did other sci-fi/science authors at the time. The evolutionist and other scientists think that giving up TENS will bring back religion into science so will not give up their religion of humanism. Most of these don't have a clue about quantum physics and so don't know that they already lost. This is simply one of the many areas where modern culture does not recognize reality and purposely ignores/obstructs it. Other scientific areas include genetics, race, IQ, environmentalism/pollution and its effect. As these areas that we ignore grow-- pretty soon we will seem like the peasants in a Monty Python skit about witches with all of our modern sensibilities ignoring the truth and cowing about being turned into a newt by triggered speech.

Blogger Doktor Jeep July 30, 2019 2:26 PM  

So. Why do we need answers? To stick it to God? To stick it to the atheists?
Is something getting hidden? All I know is that we defeated most disease, exposure, and predators almost 200 years ago. Then we eliminated classes. Now after over a century of just anybody getting to mate with anybody, we have more stupidity and unhealth in this recorded age than before. With shorter lifespans too.
It didn't take millions of years and some geogical separation either. It just took lack of judgement and medicine. Then there are those deleterious ones who are not improved by their environments.
Evolution is hiding a huge elephant in the room. That's the real reason why the left maintains a death grip on it.

Blogger Sam July 30, 2019 2:43 PM  

So what? Balboa exists but that doesn't mean anything about the concept of anthropology. The same applies to evolutionary psychology. Capital punishment leads to a decline in gene frequency tied to criminality is trivial. Doing that and then tracking the specific genes is testable. Just because our scientists are crap doesn't mean it can't be done.

Darwin's theory, as proposed, was impossible. It required the known laws of physics to be wrong. Newton had provided universal gravitation which provided a mechanism for the sun to produce heat and light and a life span of millions of years and the conservation of energy meant there was no other options to get inputs.

Darwin's theory required the known laws of physics to be wrong and an energy source that could last for billions of years.

The reason is simple. Humans need some shared cultural touchstone to organize around but it can't be something found by everyone in the world because that is easy to copy. This means either stuff no one can interact with (religion) or lies (ideology).

The result is religious times are much more honest, in alignment with how the world works and sane then secular ones.

Horse 64 chromosomes Donkey 62 Chromosomes
Mule 63 Chromosomes

There have been non-sterile Mules. No idea how.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia July 30, 2019 2:53 PM  

VD Wrote:
I've demonstrated the mathematical impossibility of evolution by natural selection and others are now hitting it increasingly hard from a variety of other angles. . .

I've been a fan of Peter Robinson and Uncommon Knowledge for a long time, and when I watched this discussion, I immediately thought of VD's various posts on TENS.

Berlinski of course has been on this Darwinism-is-wrong train for a long time, though his position on a deity is agnostic. Meyer is a Christian, as a previous commenter has mentioned, and smeared often as a "pseudo-scientific" advocate of intelligent design. Gelernter, like Berlinski, is Jewish and at one point in the discussion, Robinson and Gelernter have a bit of back and forth about creation and why "God saw that it was good." Gerlernter points to the Talmud where Hillel and Shammai, two contentious arguers, agreed on nothing except that the world is a mess and shouldn't have been created in the first place. His view? The universe may have been designed, he opines, but the design isn't particularly intelligent. Meyer has a different take, and he reminds me of a man of the cloth I knew in my youth -- calm, soothing, gentle, yet precise and thoughtfully rigorous.

All are formidable intellects, and I don't know whether all three have a higher IQ that Vox, but they certainly have higher IQs than me. Berlinski and Meyer strike me as polymaths, with Gelernter more of a specialist.

Anyway, the part about intelligent design is from 26:00 to 37:00 roughly. If you have to watch one segment, this is it.

Blogger Michael S. July 30, 2019 2:58 PM  


Beauty is the guide to science. But Theology is excluded from being a guide to science. Got it... Sarc.
Sounds like "faith" in Beauty.

Having a Degree in Philosophy has given me the basic tools to see through such deception. In philosophy, the idea of Beauty being the guide to science is what is known as philosophical "smuggling".

In this case, to assert that Beauty is scientific, something which cannot be measured by the scientific method, PROVES that science ALWAYS leads to Philosophy which ALWAYS leads to Theology if one is truly seeking what is true.

Blogger Damelon Brinn July 30, 2019 3:42 PM  

Does this not take us back to macro no but micro yes again?.

Perhaps, but there's no point in taking that angle with an evolutionist. It's basically an attempt to reach a compromise by splitting the two, so the evolutionist can keep micro but admit doubt (or failure) on macro. But the evolutionist only cares about macro, because that's the one that lets him deny his Creator. He can't afford to separate the two, because then he couldn't confuse school children into thinking that because some finches grew bigger beaks over time, they could become horses someday.

Blogger tublecane July 30, 2019 3:49 PM  

Evolutionary psychology is no more substantive than psychology-psychology. It's essentially a series of Just So stories, with wild Sherlockian leaps of logic thrown in.

Why would one require the theory of natural selection to figure out why we like the smell of flowers? It's superfluous, really.

Blogger tublecane July 30, 2019 4:05 PM  

The mutation part of Darwinism or neo-Darwinism has always tripped me up. Species differentiation by inheritable traits, okay. But the precise mechanism being "mistakes" in copying, or whatever technically constitutes a mutation? I dunno. Sounds strange. And "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Beneficial mutations like the gift of sight or conscious thought the result of a series of copying mistakes just sounds strange, doesn't it?

One thing about Darwin that gets lost is that Evolution was an idea "in the air" back in his day. He only got his breakthrough under the influence of Malthus, who wrote a lot about population pressures. Darwin figured it was the struggle to survive and reproduce under Malthusian pressures like food scarcity and so forth that led to different species. But of course he didn't know about genes, the precise biological method of passing on traits. Nor how plausible is the idea that genetic mutations could add up to complex changes in biological infrastructure over time.

Blogger David F July 30, 2019 4:25 PM  

Since you're bringing it up again, so will I. You got the math wrong, incorporating one major scaling factor (time between generations), but not two others (replications per generation, size of genome).

Blogger Rtp July 30, 2019 4:50 PM  

Vox, what do you think of my mathematical proof of the impossibility of germ theory?

In the absence of negative feedbacks (the posited immune system is a positive feedback) there could never be any recovery from disease ergo a self replicating pathogen as assumed by germ theory cannot possibly exist (assuming organisms do).

Blogger WinstonKirk July 30, 2019 5:18 PM  

Vox, you are correct on evolution. The speed in which new species are formed outstrips genetic chance and propagation.

Blogger SirHamster July 30, 2019 5:21 PM  

rumpole5 wrote:One thing is certain. The origin of the present state of humanity has not been fully explained.

You're wrong.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

That's a sufficient explanation. You can get a copy of the detailed documentary from God after the end.

Blogger BriarRabbit July 30, 2019 5:29 PM  

Exactly why evolution is impossible. DNA is information.

Atheists are always telling us we are on the verge of finding intelligent life elsewhere which, as Christians, we know is contrary to scripture. When asked how we can tell if a signal from.soace was sent by an intelligent creature, we are told, "It would contain information."

DNA is information - a literal instruction book on how to build you. But the atheists insist THAT information spontaneously arose.

Just so you have the story straight, here is atheism's worldview in a nutshell"
1) Nothing exploded and made everything.
2) You then came from a rock.

Blogger SirHamster July 30, 2019 5:36 PM  

David F wrote:Since you're bringing it up again, so will I. You got the math wrong, incorporating one major scaling factor (time between generations), but not two others (replications per generation, size of genome).

Your ability to tediously repeat yourself doesn't make Vox's math wrong.

You're so stupid you can't even distinguish between Vox's math and Vox's model. Which doesn't bode well for your ability to find flaws in either.

Blogger Monotonous Languor July 30, 2019 11:29 PM  

Darwinism is an affront to God. I tell you, the day Darwinism falls, there will be a shout of freedom such as the world has never heard before.
(adapted from Ben-Hur 1959)

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 31, 2019 12:31 AM  

"Since you're bringing it up again, so will I. You got the math wrong, incorporating one major scaling factor (time between generations), but not two others (replications per generation, size of genome)."

Liar. We've been over this so, so many times before. Your personal inability to comprehend has no bearing on truth. That you continue to speak without understanding shows that you do not yourself care if you are a liar or not. Liar.

Blogger Unknown July 31, 2019 2:36 AM  

Sam Sutherland, what is so powerful about your observation is that is precisely how the ancient pagans viewed "creation", as coming out of chaos. In fact Genesis 1 was specifically written to counteract the idea that creation came out of chaos. Genesis 1 teaches that creation specifically came out of God, who is separate to chaos, not part of it, who speaks order over it.

It's quite powerful when you realize that evolutionary theory is just another form of how the ancient Babylonians or Greeks viewed creation, just with scientific language and pseudo-scientific framework. And that Genesis 1 was specifically written to reject the worldview of the evolution, though of course not the theory itself.

Blogger Sargent.matrim July 31, 2019 2:39 AM  

Sorry forgot to sign in, the above comment about Genesis 1 is mine.

Blogger PG July 31, 2019 4:26 AM  

I never had much time for Darwin, searching for the missing link, boring, yawn. Then I discovered he also wrote about cultural evolution, or the way an organism responds to it's current environment. If my memory severs me correctly, and it might not, he put more importance on cultural evolution, something observable in our lifetime, than on this mysterious unseen biological evolution of the past.

Blogger PG July 31, 2019 4:37 AM  

Darwin is a reminder to be careful about throwing your ideas out there, you never know which one people will pick up and run with, and it might not be kicked toward your intended goal of good.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 31, 2019 10:12 AM  

"Darwin is a reminder to be careful about throwing your ideas out there, you never know which one people will pick up and run with, and it might not be kicked toward your intended goal of good."

Darwin isn't so innocent. He specifically guided the thoughts of his readers into dovetailing with the atheist cultism.

Blogger Balam July 31, 2019 12:04 PM  

PG wrote:Darwin is a reminder to be careful about throwing your ideas out there, you never know which one people will pick up and run with, and it might not be kicked toward your intended goal of good.

Satan has a way of inverting what people 'intended' when it's not of God's will and laying all the blame on the very person he's betraying. Darwin himself said an irreducibly complex organ would BTFO his theory forever - if you showed him the motility organ on those really tiny bacteria things, requiring around 21 proteins and which is useless otherwise with any lessor amount, all accounts of him say he would have agreed with you and dropped the matter. Yet "Neo Darwinists" soldier on in delusion despite their 'founder's' wishes. All of Satan's frontline philosophies end up working out like that - for example Karl Marx hated jews and almost outright said that communism wouldn't work if jews were involved in the society in any way because of their predatory nature. Whether he was right or not about communism working at all, all the major funders and pushers of communism are jews, and the average antifa soldiers on under them in defiance of the 'founder' and his wishes.

Blogger David F July 31, 2019 2:31 PM  

And the usual round of insults once again. The math is simple, you just don't like the answer.

Blogger Krum July 31, 2019 7:46 PM  

Hey Vox. Could you post that model of yours that lead to the 15.7 generations estimate? I can only find the basic bacteria maths from earlier this year.

Blogger JamesB.BKK July 31, 2019 8:32 PM  

Emergence of new species? Emergence of phyla and of all the classifications above (or below) species is scarcely embraced.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 31, 2019 10:37 PM  

"The math is simple, you just don't like the answer."

From the liar who refuses to accept the argument even before he gets to the math, then tries to run irrelevant equations with retarded assumptions, then pretends he's not displaying as a drooling moron.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts