Criticism of neo-Darwinism is NOT an ...

Criticism of neo-Darwinism is NOT an argument for creation at all.

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

Level 1

Since: Apr 13

Sweden

#1 Apr 25, 2013
Criticizing neo-Darwinism is not an argument for any kind of religious creation stories. Just because the selfish gene model is wrong, that does not prove any mythology. So stop assuming that criticism of neo-Darwinism must anyhow be support for "intelligent design" (which in itself is an absurd term, so vague it should not be used at all).

For instance, while neo-Darwinian theory can solve the problem of protein evolution across neutral gaps by saying that sometimes something useful appears, that explanation is lacking in explaining how two independently evolved proteins can fit perfectly together as signal substance and receptor. It is just like what they say about earthling-extraterrestrial hybridization: so extremely unlikely that it can for all practical purposes be considered impossible. And for the same reason: independent evolution where shit happens should not be expected to produce compatible results. But this does NOT prove any divine intervention at all. If the organisms themselves synchronize mutations to produce compatible pairs of proteins, the problem is solved. This theory predicts that adaptation to some poisons should produce extremely rapid genetic change (transmittoreceptory synchronized saltation). And there is evidence for that, reference: "DNA sequence variation and methylation in an arsenic tolerant earthworm population". Greater genetic difference between them and their 170 years ago ancestors than between humans and mice, all due to adaptation to arsenic, far too fast for random mutation plus natural selection to explain.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#2 Apr 26, 2013
Martin J Sallberg wrote:
Criticizing neo-Darwinism is not an argument for any kind of religious creation stories.
Sure. While 99% of the critics are creationists, the rest are made up of anti-science cranks.

So why do you hate kittens?

Level 1

Since: Apr 13

Sweden

#3 Apr 26, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. While 99% of the critics are creationists, the rest are made up of anti-science cranks.
So why do you hate kittens?
No, the rest are NOT made up of anti-science cranks at all. The 99% creationists figure is also too high.
Did you not even read about the problems of compatibility between independently evolved proteins as transmittor and receptor, and the arsenic worms? There are other flaws in neo-Darwinism as well, including:

#The selfish gene model predicts that we should all die from intergenomic conflict between mitochondria and cellular nuclei (they are not closely related).

#Since rapid evolution evidently exists, and neo-Darwinism explains it by saying that already existing individual variation can rapidly be converted into group differences by natural (or artificial) selection, neo-Darwinian evolutionary psychology inevitably makes racist predictions which fails to pan out (taking enough sociological factors into account, supposedly racial differences in intelligence and behavior can empirically be ruled out). It is like the theory of a lumniferous aether predicts annual variations in the speed of light in different directions which also fails to pan out.

#Organisms (including mammals) in Chernobyl adapted to radiation levels vastly higher than anything they had ever been selected for, in a single lifetime.

#The theory that evolution is driven by maximization of the amount of offspring predicts that ecosystem instabilities should incessantly exterminate important species as if all life were invasive species recently arrived.

And why do you think I hate kittens? Do you mean literally or symbolically? If the latter, in what way should a kitten symbolize neo-Darwinism?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#4 Apr 27, 2013
A kitten hater would proclaim his knowledge of the alleged falsity of evolutionary biology all over some insignificant corner of the interwebz to a bunch of geeks, while a non-kitten hater would actually go and do scientific research that would cause a biological revolution thus supporting your claims. Do let us know when you take the scientific community by storm.

Level 1

Since: Apr 13

Sweden

#5 Apr 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
A kitten hater would proclaim his knowledge of the alleged falsity of evolutionary biology all over some insignificant corner of the interwebz to a bunch of geeks, while a non-kitten hater would actually go and do scientific research that would cause a biological revolution thus supporting your claims. Do let us know when you take the scientific community by storm.
There are cases where mainstream dogma logically self-contradict, or make predictions that are falsified by empirical evidence. The so-called "scientific community" thinks too much about prestige to practice the absolute principles that only theoretical predictions and empirical evidence matters and that who came up with the theory and his/her status is irrelevant. Therefore, rejection by academia is not a valid evidence against the theory at all. And I do not only post here, I post elsewhere as well.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#6 May 1, 2013
Martin J Sallberg wrote:
<quoted text>
There are cases where mainstream dogma logically self-contradict, or make predictions that are falsified by empirical evidence. The so-called "scientific community" thinks too much about prestige to practice the absolute principles that only theoretical predictions and empirical evidence matters and that who came up with the theory and his/her status is irrelevant. Therefore, rejection by academia is not a valid evidence against the theory at all. And I do not only post here, I post elsewhere as well.
Look at you, with your grandiose paranoid delusions.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#7 May 2, 2013
Martin J Sallberg wrote:
<quoted text>
There are cases where mainstream dogma logically self-contradict, or make predictions that are falsified by empirical evidence. The so-called "scientific community" thinks too much about prestige to practice the absolute principles that only theoretical predictions and empirical evidence matters and that who came up with the theory and his/her status is irrelevant. Therefore, rejection by academia is not a valid evidence against the theory at all. And I do not only post here, I post elsewhere as well.
Which in no way addresses what I said, so I stand by my previous post.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 52 min Dogen 143,934
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr dirtclod 173,776
News Intelligent design 13 hr FREE SERVANT 23
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Mon GreyGhost 178,696
Satan's Lies and Scientist Guys (Sep '14) Sun Chilli J 13
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Sun Chimney1 583
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory Sun Paul Porter1 421
More from around the web