Neo-Darwinian Evolution doesn’t work.

On suyts I answered a comment by a friendly atheist (no really; he’s a nice guy with a live and let live attitude) that I need to elevate to a post here.

So all ye believers in evolution, hear me out. I’m a creationist at this point in time, logic leaves me no other choice.

The Challenge

Me says:
May 17, 2016 at 3:35 am
”    Now I am pretty much the same, I am a conservative non believer and against this AGW crap because it doesn’t add up except for government taxes yet again and it doesn’t solve anything in the end. And then when I look at religion it was the same.”

My answer: Too many defects

Well different people get different information and come to different conclusions. I was pretty much a Christian AND a believer in Darwinian evolution (because, why shouldn’t God create the conditions for an evolutionary process); over time I found out the holes in Darwinian (or Neo-Darwinian, which is Darwin with genes) evolution, so now it’s pretty clear to me that I was being hoodwinked. As evolution cannot work given the constraints found in reality, a totally different outlook emerges (hint: it must be a spiritual one). Evolution – while a nice idea – is proven wrong – the evolutionists don’t even try to defend it – because the numbers show it can’t work (*)- so the evolutionists at this point in time just proclaim “We have won, you religious people are nutters” (their only argument being that God does not make a measurement device react).

Think about it. When is the last time you heard Dawkins calculate the probability of positive mutations? I give you a hint. NEVER. It is not a science – it is polemic from start to finish.

(*) Every human germ cell contains about 30 negative mutations. Every child inherits about 60 defects from sperm cell and egg cell. Natural selection would have to kill off *ALL* children to maintain the quality of the genome even BEFORE any positive mutation could occur. In spite of this, evolutionists claim that magically a positive development takes place. At this point in time, the theory must be called rejected.
Origin Of Life

Same for origin of life – I think they have given up entirely even researching it. When was the last time you heard about a new idea there in the news? 20 years ago? Wouldn’t such ideas be newsworthy even given the stupidity of most journalists?

So, the evolutionists behave *EXACTLY* like the warmunists: Stonewalling and defending a refuted theory.

The “Modern” State

Evolution of course is the FOUNDATION for the “a human is just a walking lump of meat”-atheism on which the modern socialist state builds – as the human is made from dead matter only, he can be shaped by the Total State into any form the state likes. I include the imperial USA (from 1898 on) just as the USSR and the EU – mostly a CIA creation – in this.

A key milestone in the Atheist world revolution was Wundt, the founder of behaviorism, at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, which was rechristened Max Planck Institute in the BRD. He was the teacher of Pavlow. At that time, Americans came to Germany to make their PhD – the PhD being a Prussian invention – later introduced in the USA.

Behaviorism is basically bankrupt but the repercussions refuse to go away for now.

Devolution

If evolution cannot work, DEVOLUTION sure can – and it is what one would expect given the genetic defect accumulation; and the general tendency of the universe to become more entropic.
BUT this totally changes the outlook: Instead of an automatic development to higher and higher perfection, we face inevitable downfall. In this view, the clock is ticking, time is running out, not by Global Warming, but through extinction (and extinction is what we observe – have the animals that go extinct simply lost their viability? Look at the reproduction rates of some of them. Is it any wonder they go extinct?)
(I could also mention the white race right here)

This very real problem is entirely ignored by the Atheist world leaders. They say that diversity will save the day. But the imported populations have a lower IQ than we; they cannot replace us and our civilisation is doomed (if current trends continue).

The Endgame?

It looks like we are creating more and more tecnology to escape our own extermination. Maybe it’ll work. Maybe the Technological Singularity (von Neumann, Ray Kurzweil, Vernor Vinge) saves the day and becomes our rapture. Is this what was prophecied? So – does atheism meet its master (and maker)?

What have YOU to say?

Don’t hesitate to contribute your opinion. I can take it. I’m not angry if you call me a nutter – as I said, logic leaves me no other conclusion at this point in time. And I’m just posting this as my ranting answer is not the first time I wrote it all down so let’s preserve this so I save the time the next time.

Advertisements

90 thoughts on “Neo-Darwinian Evolution doesn’t work.”

  1. …continuing to collect my comments from the thread at suyts…

    leftinflagstaff says:
    May 17, 2016 at 5:53 pm
    “And yes, it’s a guarantor of life’s continuance too perfect to be unplanned.”

    [DirkH:]
    Well it is not perfect. And, is it BETTER or WORSE than in the past? Meaning – DOES it continue?

    Science would have us believe in upwards development. Yes, I see that in technology, a product of our mind. But for lifeforms? Have they not been bigger, more ferocious, more plentiful?

    Is life fizzling out? You have to put the belief in automatic up-development on its head, if ONLY to gain a perspective on the prevailing propaganda.

    Have not all existing body plans sprung into existence all at once, in the precambrian explosion; and from there, some went extinct, but no new ones came into existence. Why is that so if evolution is supposed to produce new things?

    The most striking example was told by Dr Veith, a South African creationist living in Germany and holding lectures in German; he compared life span of people mentioned in the Old Testament and sorted them from past to present and included modern lifespan and gets a kind of exponential decay curve.

    This is exactly what you expect from an accumulation of defects.

    Most people will reject this picture of increasing defects as too gloomy. I understand the psychological reason for that. But genetic decline chimes in perfectly with the visible decay of once civilized countries into madness. As IQ drops so societies break down.

    I want to paint this picture as a possible prediction for an investment strategy; the anti-vision to the common “Blue Skies” narrative.

    COLLAPSE is NORMAL. It’s what you should EXPECT.

    Like

    1. So don’t be surprised if you have the feeling you are surrounded by morons, especially when you are surrounded by younger people. You are not necessarily wiser due to your age and experience. You might just have a copy of the original design of the human brain that suffers from slightly less copying errors.

      Like

  2. General decline is predicted.

    Psalm 102:25-27 King James Version (KJV)

    25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.

    26 They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:

    27 But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+102%3A25-27&version=KJV

    And let’s have the Luther text as well.

    Psalm 102:25-27 Luther Bibel 1545 (LUTH1545)

    25 Du hast vormals die Erde gegründet, und die Himmel sind deiner Hände Werk.

    26 Sie werden vergehen, aber du bleibest. Sie werden veralten wie ein Gewand; sie werden verwandelt wie ein Kleid, wenn du sie verwandeln wirst.

    27 Du aber bleibest, wie du bist, und deine Jahre nehmen kein Ende.

    Like

    1. This tells us that any renewal can only come from God; which is in accordance with my suspicions in the headpost.
      Now! I don’t WANT it that way; I simply OBSERVE the logic of it – and found a Bible link in the article 2 comments above in a comment over there. So make of that what you will. Let’s just say modern science confirms the Psalm or vice versa.

      Like

    2. Interestingly, Dirk, I believe I recall that verse being used to promote evolution, not devolution, as God’s design.

      Like

      1. This would make sense by assuming that God fixes the probabilities and so makes evolution work IN SPITE of the odds. (The up-development *IS* the constant influence of God)

        My biggest beef with wvolutionist scientists is that they don’t actually give the probablities for their claims. This ain’t hard to do. What’s the probability of the genetic changes from a deer to a whale. This is computable. The genetic difference is known. The fitness landscape is known. The answer is: Impossibly improbable. So they simply stay silent about it.

        Like

      2. I believe it couldn’t be more obvious that He intended life to continue, until he chooses.

        Be fruitful and multiply. ‘Changing us like clothing’ would infer a new set of clothes to wear tomorrow.

        Like

      3. Yet, though through apoptosis (from death comes life) our bodies develop by self-destruction and our bodies die by self-destruction.

        On the other hand, Dirk, I don’t think the genetic variations some call defects really are defects. They’re a form of insurance against information loss.

        @leftin, well yes. Evolution is a tautology. Evolution explains nothing at all. Descent with modification, without guidance, is going to ‘trend follow’ into box canyons and not survive long term. Descent with modification can only make it if it is currently good enough and stays good enough. Blind, that cannot continue without Will and an all-seeing Will. Blind trend following cannot, of itself, conceive of the future. God, as Existence Prime, knows the future, for He created it.

        Like

      4. CD, you’re approved now. Sorry for the wait.

        a) are they defects? Well I looked up human mutation rate in “mainstream science” wikipedia – at the moment they say that indeed these are mutations… so I go with mainstream interpretation of most errors in copying as defects. We’ll see what they come up with. But, it might take them decades.
        b) As to local minima – Mutations or recombinations through crossover *CAN* tunnel through “potential walls” – it is a function of the width of the jump. Of course, bigger jumps are more dangerous. Create more unviable creatures (those stuck in the walls don’t make it). (how a Dinosaur lung turns into a bird lung requires a huge jump through such a wall… making it exceedingly improbable)

        The PROBLEM is: ALL of the human offspring is mutant. ALL of them. You can eat organic, you can exercise daily, you can even have your teeth whitened and wear sunglasses, doesn’t matter. ALL YOUR CHILDREN ARE MUTANTS. And there can also not be an internal battle in the body between mutant cells, a sort of quick micro evolution, because the GERM cells carry the mutations that will then be shared by ALL the body cells in one body.

        Big big problem.

        If you feel deficient, don’t worry. YOU ARE. Is that an encouraging message to all who feel deficient?

        Why did God make me deficient? GOD DIDN’T MAKE YOU. You’re a faulty copy of what God made!

        I guess I enjoy this far too much.

        Like

      5. One other thing, too, Dirk. That is that there is enzymatically controlled suppression of genes. Being enzymatically controlled means that the chemical environment, which living bodies directly and indirectly alter also comes into play. Mutations are not necessarily copying errors. Again, I believe that mutations are mostly neutral and a form of conservation of genetic encoded information. To me, the implication is profound and as you’ve noted, the strident Evolutionists don’t really appear to consider the chemistry and address it. I might need to see if there is anything in the ‘evolutionary biochemistry’ literature. It has been a while, but the biochemistry that I looked at, itself, didn’t say much but that the biochemists did little more than say “Evolution did it.”, regardless of what their chemical system experiments actually did and didn’t show (yeah, put the ‘statistics’ aside).

        Like

      6. Well, there’s methylation patterns, epigenetics, and the protheom, the science of decoding how all the proteins work together. But the problem is: If evolution is an unguided process, what instance is there supposed to be that decides which genes better be deactivated? It would have to be part of the inherited information system itself. And how did it then evolve? What kind of magical monade is this?

        Oh I didn’t even address one of the key problems Darwin knew nothing about – as he didn’t know genes: Selection can only work on the phenotype. Inheritance works on the genotype. The mapping from genotype to phenotype is nontrivial. Boy oh boy. Neodarwinism looks like pushing on a string more and more…

        Like

      7. But cavemen are a myth. Yes, paintings have been found in caves. Why? Because that’s where they survive.
        How do we know the age of stuff? Scientists tell us. What are the assumptions? That the speed of radioactive decay has never changed, that formation of C14 in the atmosphere happens with constant speed, i.e. that cosmic radiaton is constant. Is it? I don’t know.
        When you give a lab something for dating you must tell them an estimate of its age, i.e. in which geological layer you’ve found it, so that they can come up with a measurement that isn’t too far off the mark.
        That’s ridiculous.

        Like

      8. Hey Dirk,

        I can tell you what I remember from physical chemistry as I learned it 40 years ago. No, the production rate of carbon 14 is not constant. On the other hand, the atmospheric detonation of fission weapons at first and composite fission-fusion weapons later did provide a ‘natural’ experiment from that large spike in production. Oh yeah, here is the wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14. Note the 1-sigma uncertainty estimate (I remember it being larger at around 100).

        Liked by 1 person

      9. Another note about the log2 function. When you invert it (integrate it) you get a constant of integration. You can often arrange the equation to move things you consider ‘constant’ in terms of the differential equation into that constant of integration. Doing so changes the magnitude of that constant. When you are trying to recover information from that, like a date, you have to propagate all of the errors through your differential equation’s integration, further widening the uncertainty in your central estimate.

        Like

  3. Here’s another article about the genetic decline.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/human-intelligence-peaked-thousands-of-years-ago-and-weve-been-on-an-intellectual-and-emotional-8307101.html
    Attempt at rebuttal:
    “However, other scientists remain sceptical. “At first sight this is a classic case of Arts Faculty science. Never mind the hypothesis, give me the data, and there aren’t any,” said Professor Steve Jones, a geneticist at University College London.

    “I could just as well argue that mutations have reduced our aggression, our depression and our penis length but no journal would publish that. Why do they publish this?” Professor Jones said.”

    Jones does not even notice that he kinda illustrates the point – that professors are becoming dumber; he does not say anything about the one crucial aspect: The accumulation of mutations far faster than natural selection could weed them out. This is enough to cause inevitable decline like a ticking clock as most mutations must be negative.
    Let’s look at the arbiter of orthodox truth, the wikipedia. What *IS* the mutation rate they admit?
    “This means that a human genome accumulates around 64 new mutations per generation because each full generation involves a number of cell divisions to generate gametes.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate

    So Crabtrees argument is sound. We *DO* mutate with each generation far faster than “natural selection” could weed it out. I find no valid arguments from the evolutionists against this – only polemic, see above.

    Like

  4. In light of rampant deterioration of Human genome quality, the Eugenics movement founded by Francis Galton seems like a desparate and HOPELESS attempt at preserving genetic qualities.
    For some reason youtube just suggested this video to me about the history of Eugenics in the USA. Bow to the wonders of Deep Data Mining. Google knows me well.
    I should add: Galton and his cousin Darwin did NOT know GENES. Mendel’s work was UNKNOWN to them, hidden in a Dresden (I seem to recall) monastery in Germany. Genes, or “hereditary factors” were hypthesized by them (so they also did NOT know about dominant vs. recessive genes – which provide opportunity for DUMB parents to have SMART children etc – prodigies born from proletarian parents for instance – we must judge the inventors of Eugenics by their relative ignorance)

    Like

    1. A word of clarification: I do *not* defend the attempts of the Eugenicists. Theirs was an ill-fated and unsuitable attempt at fixing a humanly UNFIXABLE problem – the STORM of mutations – of which they knew nothing at the time.

      Like

      1. Fun fact: John Maynard Keynes, father of modern Keynesianism as applied by FED, ECB and BOJ, was president of the Eugenics society – while at the same time being a homosexual child molester using boys in Morocco; childless, his motto “In the long run we are all dead” to defend his deficit spending policy – a motto that is TRUE only for the CHILDLESS.

        Like

      2. …a homosexual not willing to have a child determines who should have children and who shouldn’t. Just think about it. Should that influence your position towards Keynesian Money-Printing policies? Oh yes it should. A lot.

        Like

    1. Fantastic videos!
      After watching Phillip Johnson about “The Blind Watchmaker” it appears to me that the Evolutionists are Neo-GNOSTICS and Natural Selection their DEMIURGE – the blind purposeless creator god. (with a small g) And the original gnostics even USED the word “blind” to describe him!

      Like

      1. “And the original gnostics even USED the word “blind” to describe him!”

        I wasn’t aware of that. Quite an interesting observation.

        I enjoy Phillip Johnson’s presentations because of his candor and clarity of thought. It’s a joy to know we still have the likes of him in the world.

        Glad you enjoyed.

        Like

    1. Thanks! I’m in a digital desert again (well actually more like a steppe), so I will only be able to check your videos later…. but, will definitely do.

      Like

  5. Interesting thoughts and discussion!
    Let me add a different perspective …….
    It seems to me we were designed, originally, to continually improve, or, at least maintain our original design. That is to say, God doesn’t create imperfect things. He does create things which are suppose to pass, but, mankind isn’t suppose to and isn’t going to pass. God will call us home before human extinction. It is, though, through Satan and original sin that we’ve become corrupted. We were suppose to, and will, walk and talk with God. I don’t imagine He’d want to spend too much time with morons.

    Like

  6. Berlinski has some interesting information theoretical arguments against Darwinianism , plus he’s funny.

    Like

    1. His material is some of my favorite on Evolution and atheism. He’s a bit too “academic” for me at times, but his criticism is certainly excellent. I haven’t seen that one yet, though. Thanks!

      Like

    2. Oh, that javascript blocking program “NoScripts” you supplied just alerted me that this video might be a “clickjacking” hazard. Any thoughts?

      Like

      1. No worries. noscript says that when HTML input elements overlap a video screen. Which can happen depending on your browser zoom setting. Try ctrl + and ctrl – in your browser, or try watching the video in fullscreen and see whether that changes anything.

        Like

  7. >>
    So, the evolutionists behave *EXACTLY* like the warmunists: Stonewalling and defending a refuted theory.
    <<

    Years ago, I was one of many on the CompuServe Science and Math forum. We used to dispatch visiting creationists with amazing logic and scientific insight. Then one day a so-called warmunist showed up and sounded as naive about science as the creationists. Yet my so-called allies agreed with the warmunist in everything he said. I could tell that the warmunist was talking nonsense from the start. AGW is nonsense. So I agree with you–they are similar.

    >>
    What’s the probability of the genetic changes from a deer to a whale.
    <<

    Pretty low I think, since the fossil evidence points to a wolf-like whale ancestor.

    Jim

    Like

    1. “‘What’s the probability of the genetic changes from a deer to a whale.’
      . . .
      Pretty low I think, since the fossil evidence points to a wolf-like whale ancestor.” – Jim

      Deer, wolf, whatever. It’s so unlikely that evolutionists might as well have said whales came from a piece of wood.

      As you can see, it depends who’s spinning the narrative what starting animal they choose. These guys chose something like a mouse-deer.
      http://oceanleadership.org/whales-descended-tiny-deer-like-ancestors/

      It’s no more than a just-so-story. In fact, what we now know of the problems with “common descent,” it is absurd to invoke it in any case.
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/06/common_descent102937.html

      Common Descent, RIP
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/05/evolutionary-tree-failed-but.html

      And, haven’t you noticed? Evolutionists are some of the biggest pushers of Warmism. I doubt that’s an accident.

      Like

      1. >>
        Deer, wolf, whatever. It’s so unlikely that evolutionists might as well have said whales came from a piece of wood.
        <<

        The trouble is, it’s not evolutionists saying that–it’s the fossil record. Assuming the fossil record is correct, then whales did evolve from a wolf-like ancestor.

        As for probability, most people have little understanding of the concept. I just flipped a coin 100 times. My head-tail sequence is as follows:
        HTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHTHTHTTH
        THHHTTTTHHTHTTHHHHTTTTTHH
        THTTTHHTTHTTTTTTTTTHTTTHH
        HTTTHHTTTTHHHHTTTHTTHTTHT

        We know exactly how many sequences of 100 coin tosses there are: 2^100 or about 1.27*10^30. That’s a big number. Assuming a universe of about 13.799*10^9 years, that would be 4.35*10^23 microseconds (if I did the math right). Even in microseconds, the age of the Universe is tiny compared to the number of 100-coin-toss sequences. The odds of getting the sequence I just got is 1 over 1.27*10^30 or extremely, extremely, extremely unlikely. Yet, I just got it. Throwing probability terms around like “unlikely” doesn’t really mean much.

        Evolution theory might be nonsense, but you still have the fossil record to deal with.

        Jim

        Like

      2. Assuming the fossil record is correct, then whales did evolve from a wolf-like ancestor.” – Jim M.

        First – if Darwin were correct, the fossil record should and probably would show it. But even if the fossil record were in complete agreement with the Darwinian hypothesis, which it is not (in the extreme), that would not be proof he was correct. You would still need independent confirmation. Unfortunately for Darwinists that doesn’t exist.

        Dr Lee Spetner, on pp. 99-100 of his book “Evolution Revolution”, quotes Gertrude Himmelfarb;
        “Every paleontological discovery that seems to have evolutionary significance is somehow taken as confirmation of the theory of natural selection, even when it has not the remotest bearing upon that theory (Himmelfarb 1962, 446)”

        Second, even if whales did somehow “evolve” from some land animal, that would not be “proof” that it was by a Darwinian process. There’s just too much to change and far too little time to change it in by random mutations, as Richard Sternberg explains.
        http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203/whale_evolution_vs_population_genetics_richard_sternberg_phd_in_evolutionary_biology/

        Another good link to an explanation of some of the logical errors evolutionists make.
        http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/06/three-fallacies-of-evolution.html
        (Note the applicability to what you wrote that I quoted above.)

        Like

      3. “As for probability, most people have little understanding of the concept. I just flipped a coin 100 times. My head-tail sequence is as follows:
        HTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHTHTHTTH
        THHHTTTTHHTHTTHHHHTTTTTHH
        THTTTHHTTHTTTTTTTTTHTTTHH
        HTTTHHTTTTHHHHTTTHTTHTTHT”

        Jim, yes you did get that sequence – but it’s MEANINGLESS. That is the point. It is all about getting the right changes fast enough to turn a wolf or deer into a whale in 8 million years. So when you need 50,000 constructional changes directed towards that goal you need one step into that direction every 160 years. And all the intermediate forms have to have an advantage relative to their predecessors otherwise natural selection wipes them out.

        So if that’s the speed in mammals and we have say 100,000 mammal species we should see about 700 positive mutations in mammal species per year. We don’t see them. There’s no news saying, hey, leopards have developed opposing thumbs last year in Kenya.

        So the blind watchmaker doesn’t improve on his watches. The Apple watch was not created by a blind guy.

        If a blind random process didn’t do it what COULD have done it?
        https://adventuresofideas.wordpress.com/2016/07/25/alfred-north-whitehead-and-process-philosophy/

        Like

      4. Weird Al gives us a practical tutorial of how mutation/selection works.

        This could take a while.

        Like

      5. >>
        but it’s MEANINGLESS. That is the point.
        <<

        Well, we have two choices: 1) believe the fossil record, or 2) believe in magic. I believe the fossil record is correct. Whales evolved in the shallow sea formed between India and Asia before the Indian continent crashed into Asia. The change from wolf-like creature to whale took less than 50 million years. So you can believe in magic. I choose to believe in natural processes.

        Historically, science has shown that natural processes could explain the magic. So now again, it’s magic over natural processes–that there is no way a natural process can explain the evolution.

        I’ve been designing a LALR parser generator in the last few weeks. It’s bottom-up parsing from the leaves to the trunk (as opposed to top-down parsing from the trunk to the leaves). Most of yonason’s and your arguments are that genes in the leaf area of an organism can’t change fast enough. No one is talking about the interior nodes–the control genes. How do control genes mutate, and how do their mutations affect an organism’s structure? One control gene mutation could account for 10’s of millions of years of a minor gene mutation.

        I’m currently suffering from weakening eyes due to age. So why does every mammal, bird, and reptile have the same, stupid fish eye design? Why do cephalopods have a superior eye design? Was God biased in favor of cephalopods? Or did we all (mammals, birds, reptiles) inherit the same idiotic eye design from the same ancestor?

        Jim

        Like

      6. Sorry Jim, but the fossil record tells us nothing about the biochemistry or the molecular biology, which, now that the data on them is pouring in, we can see clearly that the concept of “tree of life” AKA “common descent,” is hopelessly antiquated.

        As Feynman said, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, if the data doesn’t support your beautiful theory, then your theory is wrong.

        Like

      7. >>
        is hopelessly antiquated
        <<

        Your first problem is the genetic code. The code is completely arbitrary, yet most organisms on this planet use the same exact code. The variations are interesting. Mitochondria have a slightly different code which indicates that they probably have a different origin. These organelles have their own gene expression machinery that is different from a cell’s main nucleus machinery.

        Jim

        Like

      8. “Jim, yes you did get that sequence – but it’s MEANINGLESS. That is the point.” – DirkH

        Now if Jim could flip those coins again, and get the SAME sequence. And then a third time in a row, and a fourth, etc., THAT

        Like

      9. “… and a fourth, etc., THAT…” would be meaningful, because that’s where living things differ from random environmental noise. And that’s of course also why random environmental noise couldn’t possibly have been responsible for initiating life in the first place.

        (sorry about that)

        Like

      10. >>
        Now if Jim could flip those coins again, and get the SAME sequence.
        <<

        You ignored my comment about a universal genetic code. The code uses four bases and three bases make a codon. That’s 4^3 or 64 possible codes. Add to that the twenty amino acids used by living things (one of the amino acids is used as a start codon and is snipped off after transcription) and three stop codons gives us the number of possible arrangements of 64 choose 23 = 1.467*10^17. That’s not exactly right, because none of the remaining codons are unused. Some amino acids have more that one codon in the genetic code.

        Still, to paraphrase your own words, it’s highly unlikely that two unrelated organisms would have the same exact genetic code.

        Thus saying “No, it’s not” warrants some mockery.

        Jim

        Like

      11. “How do control genes mutate, and how do their mutations affect an organism’s structure? One control gene mutation could account for 10’s of millions of years of a minor gene mutation.”

        Yeah I heard about that idea, I forget the name they gave it, evo-devo genes? Hey, let’s call them god genes, like a god module in software development, a deus ex machina.

        So how did natural selection come up with that one then? This is an amplification of the dilemma I already mentioned: That natural selection works on the phenotype, so its effect on the genotype becomes distorted.

        Like

      12. “Thus saying “No, it’s not” warrants some mockery” – Jim

        Get real, Jim.

        I didn’t JUST say “No, it’s not” I also provided reasons with the links I gave, which you completely ignored. In particular, the second describes what Darwinists predicted about the code, and then tells how they have been shown to be dead wrong.
        https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/the-dna-code-is-not-unique

        Also, you are conflating the fact that all organisms use (nearly) the same code with the false concept of common descent (C.D.). They are two separate issues. I was addressing C.D., for which there is now ample evidence that it is a failed Darwinian prediction,…
        https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/similar-species-share-similar-genes
        …and you moved the goal post to Universal Code, for which we have zero evidence of how it came to be universal, and we probably never will. Just because all organisms use nearly the same code, in nearly the same way, doesn’t prove it wasn’t designed, any more than it proves all life came from a putative first organism.

        Also, please note this item, just published yesterday – (July 26, 2016)
        “New research is casting doubt on a commonly held belief about how cells use DNA to make proteins, suggesting the genetic code is more diverse than previously thought.”
        https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160726221431.htm

        We’re just at the threshold of discovering how living things work. New discoveries are trickling in, despite Darwinist stonewalling. With all that’s left to discover, if it weren’t for Darwinists, this would be a wonderful time to be a molecular biologist.

        Like

  8. Just found this by a younger Maciej Giertych than in the first link of him I posted above.

    It’s a more concise version, useful in the event that one is pressed for time.

    Like

  9. Dirk said, “Jim, yes you did get that sequence – but it’s MEANINGLESS. That is the point. It is all about getting the right changes fast enough to turn a wolf or deer into a whale in 8 million years. So when you need 50,000 constructional changes directed towards that goal you need one step into that direction every 160 years. And all the intermediate forms have to have an advantage relative to their predecessors otherwise natural selection wipes them out.”

    I disagree with this a bit. Genetic changes happen all of the time. Mostly they are neutral, for any resulting amino acid change in a protein family tends to be one of the same kind (hydrophobic for hydrophobic) and alter the folding minimally. Also, viruses shuffle DNA outside of sexual reproduction and all of it is still subject to environmental modification via post-translation modifications of both the DNA (for most forms) and the proteins. DNA families -> RNA families -> protein families. Add in in-built error correction mechanisms that limit data loss and you get a system that is “survival of the fit enough, right now”. This can’t be blind, for a blind trend following system isn’t going to be robust in a wet chemistry world. Those that are not neutral, but are detrimental, right now, will be replaced by forms not so disadvantaged. All it takes for these intermediate forms, so to speak, to make it is that in the conditions they survive in they are good enough to do so.

    Take home point? No, it isn’t survival of the fittest, it is survival of the fit enough and adaptable, within a designed system to maintain an overall fruitful result. It is the relative disadvantage, right now, that matters.

    So why do ‘recessive’ genes and/or detrimental genes persist? Because there are conditions where they are not a relative disadvantage. Take the sickle cell hemoglobins, for instance. There are several families of these where there are geographical areas where some are very common (S in Africa, E in the Middle East or India, if I am remembering correctly) while other families are not common. The persistence is due to the fact that Hemoglobin A is a relative disadvantage for red blood cell survival time in the malaria parasite endemic areas, where the sickle ones are not, unless severely disadvantageous combinations occur. AS is less disadvantaged compared to AA and SS. Then add that persistent hemoglobin F (fetal) further reduces the disadvantages of AA or SS in malaria prone areas of Africa.)

    Now, would those who talk about the fossil record, would you please point me to the chemistry of fossilization? No, I’m not saying that there is no such thing as fossils, I’m interested in the how of it. There are some serious assumptions made with far little investigation of such, as far as I’m able to find. Another thing, the record, itself, really tells us little about the conditions the fossilized forms lived in, compared to the conditions their remains were fossilized in.

    But, but, but what about antibiotic resistance? It was always there, genetically. Massive use of these selected out the forms that were most disadvantaged by antibiotics, that’s all. Where conditions make the highly antibiotic resistant forms disadvantaged, they’ll be selected out, too, in favor of the forms now less disadvantaged.

    Like

    1. RE – Antibiotic Resistance.

      Yep, it’s always been there.
      http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/bacteria-ancient-andean-mummies-had-genes-antibiotic-resistance/
      http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/antibiotic-resistance-found-in-ancient-bacteria-1.1016737

      “Where conditions make the highly antibiotic resistant forms disadvantaged, they’ll be selected out, too” – cdquarles

      Yes, again. In fact, the reason it’s not the norm is that it’s a “less fit” bug than the wild type, so after growing in the absence of antibiotics, it effectively disappears from the population.

      Finally, since these bugs are all resistant due to loss of some function, calling them “super bugs” is as ridiculous as saying an African who is resistant to malaria because of an otherwise harmful mutation has somehow become a “super African.”

      Like

    2. >>
      Now, would those who talk about the fossil record, would you please point me to the chemistry of fossilization?
      <<

      It’s also hard to measure the body temperature of a fossil.

      >>
      Another thing, the record, itself, really tells us little about the conditions the fossilized forms lived in, compared to the conditions their remains were fossilized in.
      <<

      Part of recording a fossil is recording the environment of the fossil which, like the fossil, is recorded in the surrounding rock.

      I’m not a geologist, so I can’t tell you the paleontology. I’m not a biologist, so I can’t tell you the biology. But I am an engineer, and whoever “designed” a major effluent system with a flexible pipe going through a gland that expands as one ages was an idiot.

      Jim

      Like

    3. Speaking of survival of the fittest…

      And who are the “fittest?” Darwinism defines them as those leaving the most offspring..

      Has anyone ever noticed that the Eugenics movement (Germany was neither the only nor the first, btw) was begun to remove the less fit because, …wait for it, …they might out-breed those who felt they were the most deserving of survival?

      Funny how the theoretical and operational definitions are at such odds with each other. Well, at least it would be funny if it weren’t so perversely demented.

      Like

  10. Jim, there is no magic to it. Existence exists, but existence does nor require material form. What is a natural process when nature is a contingent existence?

    Like

  11. “Your first problem is the genetic code.” – Jim

    No, it’s not. The data tell us that “common descent” is dead. So what if the code is the same, or nearly so? You can move the goalpost all you want, but that isn’t going to revive common descent, or any of Darwinists’ many other failed predictions, among them the very issue you assert is a problem for me.

    Like

      1. I provide documentation for my assertions. You call names. Intelligent readers will be able to sort it out.

        Good Bye.

        Like

      2. “What names?” – Jim
        – – – – – – –
        “Fingers in the ears and saying “La, la, la.” Typical.” – Jim
        =======================================================
        Mockery. It’s not as blatant, but amounts to the same thing.

        I supported my arguments with references, which it seems you may not have even read. I appeal to data, while you appeal to common Darwinist (mis)conceptions.

        Again, thoughtful readers can decide which (i either) of our arguments are better supported by the evidence.

        Ciao

        Like

      3. >>
        Mockery.
        <<

        So, “It’s dead, Jim!” isn’t mockery? That’s nice to know.

        >>
        Ciao
        <<

        Oyasuminasai!

        Like your links, you take a long time to get to the point. If you’re going to leave–get on with it.

        I like the last video link of yours. The speaker said so-and-so (I don’t remember the name) was his mentor and his mentor didn’t agree with him either.

        Jim

        Like

  12. @DirkH – 28. July 2016 at 3:10

    Phenotype vs Genotype (in case you don’t have it)

    As Spetner and others write, the mutations that enable organisms to survive various stresses all result in loss of some function. We never see gains in genetic information. There is no known mechanism of addition of information to the genome by random mutation of the organism’s DNA.

    Like

    1. I disagree with this, a bit, too. Function isn’t lost, necessarily, via mutation. Function gets altered. Most of the time the alteration is neutral. When it isn’t neutral, it is conditionally more or less of a relative disadvantage, and that only counts in the present of the organism that carries it. The system is designed to maintain all genetic information. That’s the function of viruses, that is, to do GMO ‘naturally’ by carrying bits from one organism to another bypassing sexual reproduction. This guarantees that, despite the lossyness of wet chemistry, genetic information never gets lost. It is the ultimate RAID bit striping setup.

      Like

  13. So, “It’s dead, Jim!” isn’t mockery? – JIm

    Nope. At least it wasn’t meant to be. C.D. is dead, and your name is Jim. So, you aren’t a Star Trek fan. Neither am I, but that’s a good line, and I don’t know any of my friends named “Jim” who would take it the wrong way. So, now I know you have no sense of humor. Noted.

    “Like your links, you take a long time to get to the point.” – Jim

    LOL. I take the time needed to make the points I make. If you haven’t the patience or the interest, then I’m wasting my time on you. But someone else might be interested, so it may not be a total waste.

    Speaking of taking time to make a point, I’m still waiting for you to make a valid one. 🙂

    доброй ночи

    Like

    1. >>
      So, you aren’t a Star Trek fan.
      <<

      Actually, I am a TOS fan. The current reboot of the series is also interesting.

      >>
      So, now I know you have no sense of humor. Noted.
      <<

      So why do you care if you’re going bye-bye?

      >>
      Speaking of taking time to make a point, I’m still waiting for you to make a valid one.
      <<

      Like why do birds, mammals, and reptiles all have the same flawed fish-eye design? Why don’t some of us have the much better designed cephalopod eyes? They’re “Practically Perfect in Every Way” (to quote Mary Poppins).

      >>
      I supported my arguments with references, which it seems you may not have even read.
      <<

      Which are mostly out-of-the-mainstream. I watched as much of your linked videos that I can stand or make time for. There’s one that discusses multiple ancestors. So does each individual branch have C.D. or is that completely verboten? And if there are dozens of original ancestors, how come there’s only one genetic code?

      >>
      Get real, Jim.
      <<

      Yeah, that would be the usual (mocking) reply of someone ignoring my points.

      Jim

      Like

      1. Our eyes are flawed? Darwinism was capable of turning the mammalian equivalent of a chevy into a submarine yet it can’t fix our eyes?

        Like

      2. >>
        Our eyes are flawed?
        <<

        I already answered that question on suyts: (https://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/05/27/id-logical-fallacies-divisiveness-and-poetic-license/#comment-11518).

        >>
        Darwinism was capable of turning the mammalian equivalent of a chevy into a submarine yet it can’t fix our eyes?
        <<

        If evolution could undo wrong turns, then we wouldn’t have any evidence of random selection. Once the bad eye design selections were made, all evolution could do was compensate.

        There’s a ligament that supports the gut in quadrupeds like horses. The convenient overhead attachment point for this ligament is the backbone and that’s where it attaches in quadrupeds. Humans use the same basic quadruped design, but we’re rotated 90 degrees. The obvious attachment point isn’t so obvious in humans. Maybe it could branch off of the ribs or extend to the clavicle? Nope, our ligament is attached to the same place on the backbone as in quadrupeds. It’s support function is in the wrong plane–which means the ligament doesn’t do much.

        To compensate, our abdominal muscles–like a bandage–have wrapped around the gut in an attempt to support it. Except there are two triangular openings that allow the gut to protrude through. Ask anyone who’s strained lifting or coughing about how painful an inguinal hernia is.

        Jim

        Like

      3. “If evolution could undo wrong turns, then we wouldn’t have any evidence of random selection. ”

        Darwinian Evolution should very easily be able to undo something it has done. There should be recessive gene leftovers, gene copies, horicontal gene transfer, all kinds of ways to revert back. The explanation is the usual: What happened, happened, and it MUST have been Darwinian mechanics because that’s our dogma in the first place. But that’s not a proof, that’s just a claim.

        Coming back to my headpost, we don’t even know how species can stay stable enough to survive. The rate of mutation is too fast.

        Like

      4. >>
        Darwinian Evolution should very easily be able to undo something it has done.
        <<

        That would imply a designer or a purpose–oops, I made a wrong turn.

        Jim

        Like

    2. “And if there are dozens of original ancestors, how come there’s only one genetic code?” – Jim

      One code(s) to rule them all?

      Right!

      As to my not being “mainstream,” What’s your point? If it’s wrong, it’s wrong. Why do you accept the demonstrably false enforced orthodoxy of Darwinism as if it were a valid measure of reality? You claim to reject it in the case of climate science. Why then do you tolerate it in the case of Evolution?

      Also, I’m still waiting for you to make a valid point in favor of Evolution (with supporting documentation).

      Like

      1. >>
        One code(s) to rule them all?
        <<

        I already said that mitochondria had a slightly different code from the nucleus (and I mean slight!). That would indicate a different origin for these organelles–but not too different. You’ll notice that plant mitochondria and chloroplasts use the standard genetic code. Interesting–no?

        >>
        Why then do you tolerate it in the case of Evolution?
        <<

        There are lots of problems with any of our scientific theories (except maybe thermodynamics). But the fossil record points to evolution. Our bodies point to C.D. There are lots of problems with what we, as humans, inherited from our ancestors. It’s obvious (to me at least) that our bodies were adopted from the quadruped design, and somewhat patched up to allow for upright bipedalism.

        Speaking of poor design, you still refuse to respond to my eye comment. Please explain how we all have the same flawed eye design if we had different ancestors. Convergent evolution? On a massive scale? With only one minor deviation (birds have a fourth cone type in their retinas–UV–which basically amounts to nothing)?

        Jim

        Like

      2. ” Please explain how we all have the same flawed eye design if we had different ancestors.” – Jim

        It seems to me that you first have to establish clearly that the eye arose from a shared ancestor, and explain clearly what you mean by “flawed.” Failing that, I don’t feel under any obligation to defend a position just because you attack it, especially in such a nebulous fashion.

        Besides, as complex as it is, I prefer to defer to someone who knows (a LOT) more about the eye than I.
        http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/12

        NOTE – I don’t necessarily to subscribe to all the claims they make on that site, especially the religious ones.

        Like

      3. “Thanks for the link. I actually watched the entire video–very interesting.” – Jim

        Welcome. Glad you liked it.

        “If you like creation sites, have you tried:” – Jim

        Thanks. I do have a few of their articles bookmarked. But otherwise I have not special affinity for them.

        Are you familiar with Dennis Noble and James Shapiro? They are about as mainstream as it gets, unless you ask activist Darwinists. Here’s a website started by them and others, with the express purpose of bringing to light the science that the Darwinists desperately want to suppress.
        http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/

        Also Lee Spetner (I’ve referenced him a couple of times above), who occasionally posts on Creationist-lite websites, as here where he writes an obit., for Common Descent.
        http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/06/common_descent102937.html
        another good one by him here.
        http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/the_evolution_r090451.html

        Like

      4. “There are lots of problems with any of our scientific theories (except maybe thermodynamics). But the fossil record points to evolution. Our bodies point to C.D.”

        As I see it, the fossil record is a fiction: There are plenty of bones. There is no fossil record before humans sort them using some questionable sorting criteria and CALL it a fossil record. The claim of continuouos up-development over millions of years flies straight in the face of mutation rates as determined by current genetic analyses (which we can repeat over and over again right now).

        Now, all those bones MIGHT even have been sorted into the right order, the up-development MIGHT have even taken place: But it is a complete mistery how it was possible assuming pure chance – given, again, that all mammals must propagate multiple mutations, most of them negative, to EVERY offspring – in other words, producing nothing but Darwin award candidates.

        Old mythologies like the Vedas talk about a decline over the ages, not an up-development. Modern genetics gives support to this claim. Bar a miracle we are doomed.

        And are not those bones of the “fossil record” those of mighty and powerful creatures the world has lost forever – so, even the “fossil record” seems to confirm the decline.

        Maybe the entire contradiction can easily be resolved by getting rid of the idea of an up-development. Actually, Occam’s razor mandates it.

        If you think your kids behave like mutants, that’s because they are.

        Like

      5. >>
        As I see it, the fossil record is a fiction
        <<

        That belief would help you to maintain your anti-evolution stance. By all means, don’t test your beliefs against actual facts.

        >>
        There is no fossil record before humans sort them using some questionable sorting criteria
        <<

        Unlike Climatology, geologists don’t usually modify their data to match theory. You’ll have to show me where they’ve sorted rock layers–to keep primate fossils (or any vertebrate fossil) out of the Precambrian.

        Jim

        Like

  14. The “Fossil Record” literally screams “NO!” to Darwinism.

    Jim seems to think Paleontology is settled science. But many questions remain, and a great deal of subjectivity (bias) is applied in transforming evidence of fossil remains into data, and then how that data should be interpreted. So, yeah, DirkH is quite correct to assert that. Still, an honest assessment of the fossil record is that it doesn’t now, nor did it ever support Darwin’s hypothesis.

    As a slight aside, here’s a nifty video on whale fossils in Peru. My favorite part is where he describes ancient whales below a certain level which are followed suddenly by modern whales. There is no gradual transition, as required by Darwin. But the main thrust is that the fossils shouldn’t exist. They are too well preserved for the geological processes that were allegedly in operation. Should keep him busy and publishing for quite a while. 🙂

    Like

    1. I came to the conclusion, 40 years ago, from having been trained in chemistry, that fossils shouldn’t exist given the conditions we see today. There are two conditions that I know of that generally preclude chemical reactions. These are 1. absolute zero and 2. non-existence of chemicals.

      Why did I come to that conclusion? Burying does not stop *all* chemical reactions and two, pressure can supply enough energy and/or proximity that a chemical reaction may occur where other conditions might not. Think of the differences in gas-phase chemistry and condensed phase chemistry, whether in solutions or on surfaces.

      Like

      1. “…fossils shouldn’t exist given the conditions we see today.” – cdquarles

        Have you watched it yet? It’s even worse than that, because, as he points out, delicate parts that normally get degraded so rapidly that they are only rarely found in other fossils, are immaculately preserved in these.

        And as to understanding the chemistry, they know some of it as can be seen in this lab outline
        http://www.geo.arizona.edu/geo3xx/geo308/FoldersOnServer/2003/1fossil&taph&ichno.htm

        But the fact that that they haven’t a clue as to why Dinosaur soft tissue can still exist makes it pretty clear they haven’t got the whole process nailed down.

        Like

      2. @ Yonason, I did watch the “Fossil Whales in Peru” video. I found it interesting. I also looked at that geology link. There was very little hard chemistry evident in it, which has been my experience.

        Again, my biology and chemistry training made it clear to me that Evolution is a tautology. It is trivially true. The existence of fossils screamed catastrophe at me. Normal biological processes quickly recycle dead bodies. Burying them doesn’t stop it. It only slows it down and even then, maybe only under certain conditions.

        Unfortunately for me, WordPress limitations didn’t allow me to directly reply under your post.

        Like

      3. “I also looked at that geology link. There was very little hard chemistry evident in it, which has been my experience.”

        Right. But there were hints, which still leaves the bulk of the work undone, though.

        In other words, yes to all. (…as long as by :…Evolution is a tautology. It is trivially true.” you mean that it is “true” only with regard to superficial appearance and just-so storytelling.)

        Like

    2. >>
      Jim seems to think . . . .
      <<

      I’m so glad you know how I think. I had this nightmare as a young lad after watching Steve McQueen’s “The Blob” (all by myself). I was alone in my house and being attacked by rice pudding. It was slowly covering the entire floor. I knew if it touched me I would be doomed, so I jump from clear spot to clear spot until I reached the safety of a back bedroom. I slammed the door shut expecting it to ooze under the door. After a moment I opened the door and saw that it was gone. The floor was completely clear–which is unusual since rice pudding usually leaves behind a mess. I ran to the nearest side exit. I knew the evil rice pudding was hiding somewhere in the house waiting to pounce. As I reached the safety of outside, I woke up. Please explain this terrifying dream. Thanks.

      Jim

      Like

      1. “I’m so glad you know how I think. ”

        I only know what you think, because you told me that “I believe the fossil record is correct.”. And, since you are a self-declared “believer,” I thought it was safe to say you were. If that’s incorrect, it is only because you misled me. 🙂

        I could never watch movies like that when I was a kid. I used to avoid them like the plague, because I would actually get physically ill after watching one. So I have no problem empathizizing with your reaction.

        But back to “knowing” how you think. Again, it’s because that’s what you SAID you thought. (believe, think, same thing). If you want to walk it back, go right ahead. But don’t blame me if you aren’t able to communicate effectively.

        Like

  15. @ Dirk, most of the mutations are neutral, not negative, given that life has to survive conditions, arguably often highly variable conditions, right now. Even the negative ones are only so because of the highly variable conditions resulted in that being so at a specific point in time or as a result of deliberate action (like antibiotics or any kind of selective breeding, where ‘fit’ has a meaning to the actor). That this is so has and will be shown by retention of antibiotic resistance and anti-malarial resistance anyway, ‘just in case’.

    @ Jim, yet I’ve still not seen demonstrations of how the chemistry works. I’ve heard lots of hand-wavy rationalizations, but little hard chemistry. If you know of some reproducible studies of the chemistry of fossilization, I’d love to be pointed to them.

    Like

    1. >>
      @ Jim, yet I’ve still not seen demonstrations of how the chemistry works.
      <<

      I’m not a chemist either. But I’ve heard that chemists don’t like the way astronomers refer to all elements heavier than hydrogen and helium as “metals.”

      Jim

      Like

      1. It doesn’t bother me, given that the chemistry of stars is plasma and nuclear; and that people don’t get confused by the context. Earth condition chemistry mostly doesn’t apply to stellar formation, maybe. 🙂

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s