The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :  (Read 187392 times)

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Bored Chemist , Cheryl :

See how non-materialist scientists who dare to challenge Darwinism have been persecuted , excluded , their reputations and careers ruined by the mainstream materialist inquisition , while science is all about free inquiry : freedom of thought expelled from science thus .

ID is a scientific theory , no creationism , i can tell , because i studied it .I was against it once untill i saw their arguments and evidence :


Listen to the arguments of Stephen Meyer who wrote signature in the cell, Darwin's doubt and more :


Listen to those of Michael Behe who wrote Darwin's black box :


If you don't want to read their books, or have no time for that , watch their videos on the subject on youtube then , instead of swallowing the mainstream materialist distorted dogmatic version of events , without question .
« Last Edit: 08/10/2014 18:11:50 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Just to clear something up, I am not a materialist. It doesn't matter to me what stuff is made or not made of because what actually matters is mechanism. A denial of the material is a complete non-issue as it doesn't address the mechanism of how sentience (and consciousness as a whole) interacts with an information system which is clearly a key part of the system and which is manifestly mechanistic. If you can't explain the interface, you're just howling in the wind.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4714
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

ID is a scientific theory


What does it predict? How does it explain the everyday observation of evolution? In order to be scientific, it must make accurate predictions and explain all the data we already have. If not, it's just waffle.
« Last Edit: 08/10/2014 18:44:36 by alancalverd »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile

ID is a scientific theory


What does it predict? How does it explain the everyday observation of evolution? In order to be scientific, it must make accurate predictions and explain all the data we already have. If not, it's just waffle.

There is just micro-evolution or rather adaptation within species , no macro-evolution for which there is absolutely no scientific evidence ."Evolution "  must be replaced by adaptation ...within species , that is . watch those videos here above .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Just to clear something up, I am not a materialist. It doesn't matter to me what stuff is made or not made of because what actually matters is mechanism. A denial of the material is a complete non-issue as it doesn't address the mechanism of how sentience (and consciousness as a whole) interacts with an information system which is clearly a key part of the system and which is manifestly mechanistic. If you can't explain the interface, you're just howling in the wind.

If i could explain how consciousness "interacts " with "matter ", i would have been the greatest genius of all times lol , don't you think ? .

Our current science or the level of our current human   scientific "progress" are simply still too primitive to account for that  ( Not to mention that current science has been materialist = has been based on the false materialist conception of nature or world view, philosophy, ideology ...) , or as Einstein used to say , or in similar words to that same effect at least : we forgot or lost our ability to  connect ourselves to our inner light that makes current science look like child's play  . Einstein who even admitted that  all his  scientific discoveries could not be made  without that inner light he talked about .

Imagine what we can achieve if we would use the limitless potential of our  human  inner light , since our "reality " is psycho-physical ,as Von Neumann school and others + Most quantum theory founders showed.
 
What you don't understand is that no physical reality or matter can exist without consciousness = "matter " exists only when observed , so, consciousness precedes the existence of "matter " .That means that "matter " and consciousness are inseparable .............In fact : our illusory physical reality is the LOWEST level of reality .

Finally : IF you are neither a materialist nor a non-materialist , who are you then ? and how can the nature of reality or what is it made up of not matter to you , since the nature of reality is inseparable of the nature of life and of the nature of consciousness, not to mention that it is inseparable of the origin of life , "evolution " of life .... .

For example, a materialist cannot but assume that consciousness is material , NOT because it is , but , simply because materialism allows ONLY that assumption regarding the nature of everything , including consciousness .

A materialist would also seek ONLY a "natural " or a material process behind the origin of life , "evolution" of life ............behind everything thus , since materialism assumes that everything is matter , including the mind thus .

But , a non-materialist would think otherwise ,so .

In short :

Science should be based on the 'correct " theory of nature of the moment , that which has more explanatory power than the rest : the non-materialist theory of nature in this case that has more explanatory power than the false materialist theory of nature .The latter that has been proven to be false through an overwhelming body of evidence .

Only evidence should show the way to scientists thus , wherever evidence might take them , not dogmatic world views .

Non-materialist scientists thus adopt the non-materialist world view ONLY because the scientific evidence points that way , unlike materialists thus .
« Last Edit: 08/10/2014 21:28:49 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4714
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
If things were indeed intelligently designed, they would be optimal. Thus adaptation within a species would be unnecessary and the variability of genetics, which produces a very few successful evolutes and an awful lot of painful deformities and deficiencies, would have been eliminated.

You might make a weak case for design, or at least a series of discarded prototypes, but there is no evidence for a guiding intelligence. Life, at least on this planet,  is either an inevitable consequence of the geometries of the p orbital and the hydrogen bond, or the plaything of a sadistic deity. The first statement meets Occam's criterion, and is explanatory.
« Last Edit: 09/10/2014 07:25:12 by alancalverd »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile

Keep deluding yourself : there is no scientific evidence for macro-evolution , just materialist fairy tales speculations , simply because no chemical theory to date can account for that .



Of course there's evidence of macro evolution.

Micro- evolution is a term that has been co-opted by creationists because even they can't deny that there are obvious observable changes that can be selected for in animal breeding.  They're pretty much forced into making that concession, but dig in their heels claiming there's no macro-evolution - one species cannot become another, a dinosaur cannot evolve into a bird.

Creationists have a tendency to move the species line when it suits them, on the one hand claiming that the identity and separation between species is fixed and unchanging, and there are no "links" But when you try to point out the links - examples of different, but closely related species that can still sometimes reproduce (dog-wolf, dog-jackal) although usually with lower fertility, suddenly the species line is moved to include them as well - "they're all really just different kinds of dogs."

Never the less, there are plenty examples of observable artificially or experimentally induced speciation - with Drosophilia flies, in  fish breeding, and in plants. A selective force is applied until the progeny are morphologically different and are no longer able to reproduce, either naturally or artificially, with the parent stock.

There are also examples of speciation occurring in nature as well  - not just in the fossil record but in recent times. One of my favorite examples:
The February, 1989 issue of Scientific American ("A Breed Apart.") describes a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that was a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit (commonly called the thorn apple.) About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The species split into two groups that feed and breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. This is an interesting case because the changes in the two groups are related to their different food choice – their development, maturity, and mating becoming synchronized with the different ripening time of one fruit or the other, causing the two groups to become both developmentally and genetically different, and sexually incompatible with one another, despite sharing the same general geographical region.

What is it about the process of speciation that you think needs supernatural help, Don? Why do you think it requires a designer?


« Last Edit: 09/10/2014 04:03:57 by cheryl j »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile

In short :
The non-materialist theory of nature in this case that has more explanatory power than the false materialist theory of nature.....

Only evidence should show the way to scientists thus....


That's exactly what people have been asking you to provide for more than a year now - examples of the explanatory power of your theory, instead of merely attacking the one you don't agree with it. Evidence for your theory, instead of simply complaining that another one doesn't explain things "fully."

« Last Edit: 09/10/2014 02:56:33 by cheryl j »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg441968#msg441968 date=1412819579]

In short :
The non-materialist theory of nature in this case that has more explanatory power than the false materialist theory of nature.....

Only evidence should show the way to scientists thus....


That's exactly what people have been asking you to provide for more than a year now - examples of the explanatory power of your theory, instead of merely attacking the one you don't agree with it. Evidence for your theory, instead of simply complaining that another one doesn't explain things "fully."

(You were supposed to undergo a surgery today .Is everything ok ? , or will you have to go through that surgery ,later on ? Best wishes , either way .)

Well, first of all : the materialist theory of nature ,together with all its extensions , including the materialist theory of consciousness  , is  certainly false ,and has been proven to be false by an overwhelming body of evidence , once again .

So, i have been against it , NOT because i do not agree with it or because i don't like it .I have been against it , ONLY because it is false and has been proven to be false ,while the mainstream materialist scientific community has been so dogmatic as to ignore all that evidence and facts against materialism .

Second : this thread is all about that and more : about refuting materialism , and also about proving the fact that non-materialist theories of consciousness and nature do have more explanatory power than the materialist ones .

The former has been presenting an overwhelming body of evidence that can explain many 'anomalies " such as psi phenomena , including telepathy , remote viewing , near death experiences , the placebo/nocebo effects , and the rest .Materialism can clearly not explain all that , NOT today and not tomorrow , no matter how promissory materialism would say on the subject , simply because materialism is incompatible with psi phenomena and the rest .

I have even been referring you all to the site of the manifesto for a post-materialistic science where you can check all that out .

But , you have been all lazy enough as not to do that .

It has been proven scientifically that consciousness is a non-physical and non-local process , and that the brain is just a medium for consciousness, both ways .The brain that just limits or  filters consciousness or just confines it within the physical reality sometimes ...that's why some drugs ,brain damage , mental illness, ...can either shut down, so to speak, reduce or expand the scope of consciousness , for example .

The limiting capacity of the brain regarding the scope of consciousness explains why consciousness seems to be altered , reduced or gone ,after brain damage .....

It has been proven scientifically that consciousness can survive death , can exist without the brain when the latter is shut down under coma ...and more .

Not to mention that non-materialist theories of nature and consciousness are consistent with quantum theory and with the recent discoveries at the level of neuroscience .

If you want some detailed display of the related experiments , data, results ...on the subject , i would be glad to display them here in great  detail .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile

Keep deluding yourself : there is no scientific evidence for macro-evolution , just materialist fairy tales speculations , simply because no chemical theory to date can account for that .



Of course there's evidence of macro evolution.

Micro- evolution is a term that has been co-opted by creationists because even they can't deny that there are obvious observable changes that can be selected for in animal breeding.  They're pretty much forced into making that concession, but dig in their heels claiming there's no macro-evolution - one species cannot become another, a dinosaur cannot evolve into a bird.

Creationists have a tendency to move the species line when it suits them, on the one hand claiming that the identity and separation between species is fixed and unchanging, and there are no "links" But when you try to point out the links - examples of different, but closely related species that can still sometimes reproduce (dog-wolf, dog-jackal) although usually with lower fertility, suddenly the species line is moved to include them as well - "they're all really just different kinds of dogs."

Never the less, there are plenty examples of observable artificially or experimentally induced speciation - with Drosophilia flies, in  fish breeding, and in plants. A selective force is applied until the progeny are morphologically different and are no longer able to reproduce, either naturally or artificially, with the parent stock.

There are also examples of speciation occurring in nature as well  - not just in the fossil record but in recent times. One of my favorite examples:
The February, 1989 issue of Scientific American ("A Breed Apart.") describes a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that was a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit (commonly called the thorn apple.) About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The species split into two groups that feed and breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. This is an interesting case because the changes in the two groups are related to their different food choice – their development, maturity, and mating becoming synchronized with the different ripening time of one fruit or the other, causing the two groups to become both developmentally and genetically different, and sexually incompatible with one another, despite sharing the same general geographical region.

What is it about the process of speciation that you think needs supernatural help, Don? Why do you think it requires a designer?

Well :

"Evolution " or rather adaptation occurs only within species : "micro-evolution" or rather micro-adaptation .

There is absolutely no scientific evidence for HOW the so-called macro-evolution occurs : no chemical theory to date can account for that , or ever .

I am not talking about any supernatural intervention here .

I am saying :  HOW the so-called macro-evolution occurs ?: that's been "explained " only by materialist fairy tales speculations, while relying on resemblances , similarities and common features of certain species, in essence in the same way the materialist theory of consciousness 'explains " consciousness .....via inexplicable magic thus   .

I am talking just about the fact that the appearance of design in nature , not to mention the origin of biological ,DNA or life  information , cannot be accounted for by Darwinism through natural selection .


Regarding the origin of life that's inseparable of the nature of life and of the origin of life information : There has to be life first for the "unguided almighty blind and random " natural selection to do its 'work, not to mention that the highly unlikely lottery of that unguided natural selection cannot account for the complexity and diversity  of life on earth  : do the maths to see how likely it might be for the natural selection to account for that .

Darwin himself admitted that there was an appearance of design in nature , and that he could not refute that .His theory of evolution through the unguided blind random natural selection replaced the appearance of design by yet another form of design, the materialist one ,that is  : the unguided blind random selection that cannot account really for all the complexity and diversity of life on this planet ,since no chemical theory to date can account for that .

Darwin himself was puzzled by the Cambrian explosion where species appeared suddenly, and where the fossil evidence contradicted his theory   : a fact Darwin could not explain ,  none can through natural selection .

Darwin has even sent a copy of his "On the origin of species " to a famous naturalist on the subject who responded by saying that Darwinism could not  account for the Cambrian explosion, for example  .

Otherwise , try to explain to me how macro-evolution occurs through natural selection then , chemically ,that is ,since reductionist materialism assumes that biology is just applied chemistry .

Darwinism can also not account for DNA or biological information that's necessary for "evolution " ..............

Even prominent chemists , biologists admit that they do not see how the so-called macro-evolution can take place . They can't identify any chemical or biological process that can account for that , NOT because they cannot do that today , but , because no chemical theory can ever account for all that complexity and diversity of life .

Even chance has been ruled out from 'evolution " .

So, how can that lottery of the unguided blind random natural selection give rise to all that complexity and diversity of life then ? Darwin should have studied maths lol, or just probability , before uttering such non-sense .

Later more ...


« Last Edit: 09/10/2014 19:46:12 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
If things were indeed intelligently designed, they would be optimal. Thus adaptation within a species would be unnecessary and the variability of genetics, which produces a very few successful evolutes and an awful lot of painful deformities and deficiencies, would have been eliminated.

You might make a weak case for design, or at least a series of discarded prototypes, but there is no evidence for a guiding intelligence. Life, at least on this planet,  is either an inevitable consequence of the geometries of the p orbital and the hydrogen bond, or the plaything of a sadistic deity. The first statement meets Occam's criterion, and is explanatory.

Ockham's razor would agree with the idea of design behind life information instead , as well as behind the rich diversity and complexity of life .

Design that has nothing to do with creationism though .

How can any chemical , biological or material process account for life information then ? , let alone for the complexity and diversity of life on earth , through some highly unlikely , mathematically impossible, unguided blind random natural selection ?

Your your mind, scientist .

Many chemists , biologists and other prominent scientists admit the fact that they have no clue regarding how the so-called macro-evolution can occur that way ... Not because they don't know that NOW , but because no material biological or chemical process can ever account for that through the highly unlikely lottery of the unguided blind random natural selection .

Materialist science is full of fairy tales thus .
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Bored Chemist :

See this about how no chemical theory can account for macro-evolution , let alone for biological information , by a prominent chemist, since materialists assumes that psychology is just applied biology , biology just applied chemistry , chemistry just applied physics ... :

The materialist version of evolution, for example, is full of fairy tales thus :

Prominent Chemist Says Scientists Don’t Really Understand Evolution

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/995875-prominent-chemist-says-scientists-dont-really-understand-evolution/

I had a brief look and what the article actually says is
A member of the "intelligent design" conspiracy says that he doesn't understand evolution - which is no shock because he's not a biologist, and he says that some other people- whom he doesn't name, also don't understand it.


Given that nobody fully understands it, the ignorance of a chemist and a few of his friends is utterly meaningless.


And, re.
"Intelligent Design is a scientific theory that has nothing to do with creationism : "
Nope.
It's not a theory in the scientific sense and the courts have noticed that it's creationism in (poor) disguise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Kitzmiller_trial

What are you talking about ? The man is a prominent chemist who should know what he's talking about , and he's no proponent of ID .

For your information : no chemical theory can account for either macro-evolution nor for the origin of life , let alone for biological or life information .
That's a fact you should know , a fact known to all chemists , biologists ...


And yes, ID is a scientific theory that has nothing to do with creationism : read those books i mentioned above on the subject , instead of relying on wikipedia .You're confusing creationism with ID , so, since when are courts the place where scientific theories are settled ? lol


OK, for a start, he is, in fact a signatory to this
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
which is used to indicate his support for "ID"
That's rather boringly factual, rather than as you describe it "ignorant".

It's equally clear that so called  "intelligent design" is creationist- it requires a "Designer" who, in turn needs to have been created as well as to create.

Even the proponents accept that they have no scientific theory
"Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view[1][2] that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[3] Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses.[4][5][6] Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,[7][8] while conceding that they have yet to produce a scientific theory.[9] " (from wiki)

And there is very clear evidence of macro evolution.
You have about half your DNA in common with a banana.

So, the essence of your thread seems to be a set of false statements.

Why is that?


 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Bored Chemist :

See this about how no chemical theory can account for macro-evolution , let alone for biological information , by a prominent chemist, since materialists assumes that psychology is just applied biology , biology just applied chemistry , chemistry just applied physics ... :

The materialist version of evolution, for example, is full of fairy tales thus :

Prominent Chemist Says Scientists Don’t Really Understand Evolution

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/995875-prominent-chemist-says-scientists-dont-really-understand-evolution/

I had a brief look and what the article actually says is
A member of the "intelligent design" conspiracy says that he doesn't understand evolution - which is no shock because he's not a biologist, and he says that some other people- whom he doesn't name, also don't understand it.


Given that nobody fully understands it, the ignorance of a chemist and a few of his friends is utterly meaningless.


And, re.
"Intelligent Design is a scientific theory that has nothing to do with creationism : "
Nope.
It's not a theory in the scientific sense and the courts have noticed that it's creationism in (poor) disguise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Kitzmiller_trial

What are you talking about ? The man is a prominent chemist who should know what he's talking about , and he's no proponent of ID .

For your information : no chemical theory can account for either macro-evolution nor for the origin of life , let alone for biological or life information .
That's a fact you should know , a fact known to all chemists , biologists ...


And yes, ID is a scientific theory that has nothing to do with creationism : read those books i mentioned above on the subject , instead of relying on wikipedia .You're confusing creationism with ID , so, since when are courts the place where scientific theories are settled ? lol


OK, for a start, he is, in fact a signatory to this
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
which is used to indicate his support for "ID"
That's rather boringly factual, rather than as you describe it "ignorant".

It's equally clear that so called  "intelligent design" is creationist- it requires a "Designer" who, in turn needs to have been created as well as to create.

Even the proponents accept that they have no scientific theory
"Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view[1][2] that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[3] Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses.[4][5][6] Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,[7][8] while conceding that they have yet to produce a scientific theory.[9] " (from wiki)

And there is very clear evidence of macro evolution.
You have about half your DNA in common with a banana.

So, the essence of your thread seems to be a set of false statements.

Why is that?

All i know about that jewish chemist who was brave and honest enough as to dare say that scientists don't  understand macro-evolution , is what i read about him on that particular article where it is clearly mentioned that he 's no proponent of ID , even though he admits he believes in God ...

Second : There is no evolutionary chemical theory or material process that can explain HOW macro-evolution occurs, or how the necessary new life information arises , in order to "build " novel forms and body plans , not to mention the Cambrian explosion where species appeared suddenly without preceding or pre-existing species , and where the fossil record or evidence contradicts Darwinism on the subject  .

And this thread is also all about that manifesto for a post-materialistic science , since materialism is certainly false and hence  the mainstream materialist "scientific world view " is also false .

Third : ID is a scientific theory , NOT a religious one , even though it has religious implications , and it has thus nothing to do with creationism , once again :


What false statements are you talking about then ? Those that exist only in your own mind ?
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Scientific Proof of Intelligent Design in DNA by a NON-Proponent of ID :




 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
The Following Should  Clarify What I was Talking About Concerning The Many Scientific Challenges To The Materialist Neo-Darwinian Versions of The Origin of Life and Evolution of Life.... :
Excerpt From "Darwin's Doubt " By Stephen Meyer :


Good Read , Enjoy :

Prologue :

When people today hear the term “information revolution,” they typically think of silicon chips and software code, cellular phones and supercomputers.
They rarely think of tiny one-celled organisms or the rise of animal life.
 But, while writing these words in the summer of 2012, I am sitting at the end of a narrow medieval street in Cambridge, England, where more than half a century ago a far-reaching information revolution began in biology.
This revolution was launched by an unlikely but now immortalized pair of scientists, Francis Crick and James Watson. Since my time as a Ph.D. student at Cambridge during the late 1980s, I have been fascinated by the way their discovery transformed our understanding of the nature of life. Indeed, since the 1950s, when Watson and Crick first illuminated the chemical structure and information-bearing properties of DNA, biologists have come to understand that living things, as much as high-tech devices, depend upon digital information— information that, in the case of life, is stored in a four-character chemical code embedded within the twisting figure of a double helix.
Because of the importance of information to living things, it has now become apparent that many distinct “information revolutions” have occurred in the history of life—not revolutions of human discovery or invention, but revolutions involving dramatic increases in the information present within the living world itself. Scientists now know that building a living organism requires information, and building a fundamentally new form of life from a simpler form of life requires an immense amount of new information. Thus, wherever the fossil record testifies to the origin of a completely new form of animal life—a pulse of biological innovation—it also testifies to a significant increase in the information content of the biosphere.
In 2009, I wrote a book called Signature in the Cell about the first “information revolution” in the history of life—the one that occurred with the origin of the first life on earth.
My book described how discoveries in molecular biology during the 1950s and 1960s established that DNA contains information in digital form, with its four chemical subunits (called nucleotide bases) functioning like
letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code. And molecular biology also revealed that cells employ a complex information-processing system to access and express the information stored in DNA as they use that information to build the proteins and protein machines that they need to stay alive. Scientists attempting to explain the origin of life must explain how both information-rich molecules and the cell’s information-processing system arose.
The type of information present in living cells—that is, “specified” information in which the sequence of characters matters to the function of the sequence as a whole—has generated an acute mystery.
No undirected physical or chemical process has demonstrated the capacity to produce specified information starting “from purely physical or chemical” precursors. For this reason, chemical evolutionary theories have failed to solve the mystery of the origin of first life—a claim that few mainstream evolutionary theorists now dispute.
In Signature in the Cell, I not only reported the well-known impasse in origin-of-life studies; I also made an affirmative case for the theory of intelligent design. Although we don’t know of a material cause that generates functioning digital code from physical or chemical precursors, we do know— based upon our uniform and repeated experience—of one type of cause that has demonstrated the power to produce this type of information. That cause is intelligence or mind. As information theorist Henry Quastler observed, “The creation of information is habitually associated with conscious activity.”
 Whenever we find functional information—whether embedded in a radio signal, carved in a stone monument, etched on a magnetic disc, or produced by an origin-of-life scientist attempting to engineer a self-replicating molecule—and we trace that information back to its ultimate source, invariably we come to a mind, not merely a material process. For this reason, the discovery of digital information in even the simplest living cells indicates the prior activity of a designing intelligence at work in the origin of the first life.
My book proved controversial, but in an unexpected way. Though I clearly stated that I was writing about the origin of the first life and about theories of chemical evolution that attempt to explain it from simpler preexisting chemicals, many critics responded as if I had written another book altogether. Indeed, few attempted to refute my book’s actual thesis that intelligent design provides the best explanation for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life. Instead, most criticized the book as if it had presented a critique of the standard neo-Darwinian theories of biological evolution—theories that attempt to account for the origin of new forms of life from simpler preexisting forms of life. Thus, to refute my claim that no chemical evolutionary processes had demonstrated the power to explain the ultimate origin of information in the DNA (or RNA) necessary to produce life from simpler preexisting chemicals in the first place, many critics cited processes at work in already living organisms—in particular, the process of natural selection acting on random mutations in already existing sections of information-rich DNA. In other words, these critics cited an undirected process that acts on preexistent information-rich DNA to refute my argument about the failure of undirected material processes to produce information in DNA in the first place.
For example, the eminent evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala attempted to refute Signature by arguing that evidence from the DNA of humans and lower primates showed that the genomes of these organisms had arisen as the result of an unguided, rather than intelligently designed, process—even
though my book did not address the question of human evolution or attempt to explain the origin of the human genome, and even though the process to which Ayala alluded clearly presupposed the existence of another information-rich genome in some hypothetical lower primate.
Other discussions of the book cited the mammalian immune system as an example of the power of natural selection and mutation to generate new biological information, even though the mammalian immune system can only perform the marvels it does because its mammalian hosts are already alive,
and even though the mammalian immune system depends upon an elaborately preprogrammed form of adaptive capacity rich in genetic information—one that arose long after the origin of the first life.
Another critic steadfastly maintained that “Meyer’s main argument” concerns “the inability of random mutation and selection to add information to [preexisting] DNA” and attempted to refute the book’s presumed critique of the neo-Darwinian mechanism of biological evolution accordingly.
I found this all a bit surreal, as if I had wandered into a lost chapter from a Kafka novel. Signature in the Cell simply did not critique the theory of biological evolution, nor did it ask whether mutation and selection can add new information to preexisting information-rich DNA.
To imply otherwise, as many of my critics did, was simply to erect a straw man.
To those unfamiliar with the particular problems faced by scientists trying to explain the origin of life, it might not seem obvious why invoking natural selection does not help to explain the origin of the first life. After all, if natural selection and random mutations can generate new information in
living organisms, why can it also not do so in a prebiotic environment? But the distinction between a biological and prebiotic context was crucially important to my argument.
Natural selection assumes the existence of living organisms with a capacity to reproduce. Yet self-replication in all extant cells depends upon information-rich proteins and nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), and the origin of such information-rich molecules is precisely what origin-of-life research needs to explain.
That’s why Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the founders of the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis, can state flatly, “Pre-biological natural selection is a contradiction in terms.”5 Or, as Nobel Prize–winning molecular biologist and origin-of-life researcher Christian de Duve explains, theories of prebiotic natural selection fail because they “need information which implies they have to presuppose what is to be explained in the first place.”
Clearly, it is not sufficient to invoke a process that commences only once life has begun, or once biological information has arisen, to explain the origin of life or the origin of the information necessary to produce it.
All this notwithstanding, I have long been aware of strong reasons for doubting that mutation and selection can add enough new information of the right kind to account for large-scale, or “macroevolutionary,” innovations—the various information revolutions that have occurred after the origin of life. For this reason, I have found it increasingly tedious to have to concede, if only for the sake of argument, the substance of claims I think likely to be false.
And so the repeated prodding of my critics has paid off. Even though I did not write the book or make the argument that many of my critics critiqued in responding to Signature in the Cell, I have decided to write that book. And this is that book.
Of course, it might have seemed a safer course to leave well enough alone. Many evolutionary biologists now grudgingly acknowledge that no chemical evolutionary theory has offered an adequate explanation of the origin of life or the ultimate origin of the information necessary to produce it.
Why press a point you never made in the first place?
Because despite the widespread impression to the contrary—conveyed by textbooks, the popular media, and spokespersons for official science—the orthodox neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution has reached an impasse nearly as acute as the one faced by chemical evolutionary theory.
Leading figures in several subdisciplines of biology—cell biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, paleontology, and even evolutionary biology—now openly criticize key tenets of the modern
version of Darwinian theory in the peer-reviewed technical literature.
 Since 1980, when Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould declared that neo-Darwinism “is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy,” the weight of critical opinion in biology has grown steadily with
each passing year.
 A steady stream of technical articles and books have cast new doubt on the creative power of the mutation and selection mechanism.
 So well established are these doubts that prominent evolutionary theorists must now periodically assure the public, as biologist Douglas Futuyma has done, that “just because we don’t know how evolution occurred, does not justify doubt about whether it occurred.”
Some leading evolutionary biologists, particularly those associated with a group of scientists known as the “Altenberg 16,” are openly calling for a new theory of evolution because they doubt the creative power of the mutation and natural selection mechanism.
The fundamental problem confronting neo-Darwinism, as with chemical evolutionary theory, is the problem of the origin of new biological information.
Though neo-Darwinists often dismiss the problem of the origin of life as an isolated anomaly, leading theoreticians acknowledge that neo- Darwinism has also failed to explain the source of novel variation without which natural selection can do nothing—a problem equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information. Indeed, the problem of the origin of information lies at the root of a host of other acknowledged problems in contemporary Darwinian theory—from the origin of new body plans to the origin of complex structures and systems such as wings, feathers, eyes, echolocation, blood clotting, molecular machines, the amniotic egg, skin, nervous systems, and multicellularity, to name just a few.


« Last Edit: 10/10/2014 21:20:30 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
At the same time, classical examples illustrating the prowess of natural selection and random mutations do not involve the creation of novel genetic information. Many biology texts tell, for example, about the famous finches in the Galápagos Islands, whose beaks have varied in shape and length over time.
They also recall how moth populations in England darkened and then lightened in response to varying levels of industrial pollution. Such episodes are often presented as conclusive evidence for the power of evolution. And indeed they are, depending on how one defines “evolution.”
That term has many meanings, and few biology textbooks distinguish between them. “Evolution” can refer to anything from trivial cyclical change within the limits of a preexisting gene pool to the creation of entirely novel genetic information and structure as the result of natural selection acting on random mutations. As a host of distinguished biologists have explained in recent technical papers, small-scale, or “microevolutionary,” change cannot be extrapolated to explain large-scale, or “macroevolutionary,” innovation.11 For the most part, microevolutionary changes (such as variation in color or shape) merely utilize or express existing genetic information, while the macroevolutionary change necessary to assemble new organs or whole body plans requires the creation of entirely new information. As an increasing number of evolutionary biologists have noted, natural selection explains “only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest.”12 The technical literature in biology is now replete with world-class biologists13 routinely expressing doubts about various aspects of neo- Darwinian theory, and especially about its central tenet, namely, the alleged creative power of the natural selection and mutation mechanism.
Nevertheless, popular defenses of the theory continue apace, rarely if ever acknowledging the growing body of critical scientific opinion about the standing of the theory. Rarely has there been such a great disparity between the popular perception of a theory and its actual standing in the relevant peer-reviewed scientific literature. Today modern neo-Darwinism seems to enjoy almost universal acclaim among science journalists and bloggers, biology textbook writers, and other popular spokespersons for science as the great unifying theory of all biology. High-school and college textbooks present its tenets without qualification and do not acknowledge the existence of any significant scientific criticism of it. At the same time, official scientific organizations—such as the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS), and the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT)—routinely assure the public that the contemporary version of Darwinian theory enjoys unequivocal support among qualified scientists and that the evidence of biology overwhelmingly supports the theory. For example, in 2006 the AAAS declared, “There is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution.” The media dutifully echo these pronouncements.
 As New York Times science writer Cornelia Dean asserted in 2007, “There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth.”
The extent of the disparity between popular representations of the status of the theory and its actual status, as indicated in the peer-reviewed technical journals, came home to me with particular poignancy as I was preparing to testify before the Texas State Board of Education in 2009. At the time the board was considering the adoption of a provision in its science education standards that would encourage teachers to inform students of both the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories.
This provision had become a political hot potato after several groups asserted that “teaching strengths and weaknesses” were code words for biblical creationism or for removing the teaching of the theory of evolution from the curriculum. Nevertheless, after defenders of the provision insisted that it neither sanctioned teaching creationism nor censored evolutionary theory, opponents of the provision shifted their ground.
They attacked the provision by insisting that there was no need to consider weaknesses in modern evolutionary theory because, as Eugenie Scott, spokeswoman for the National Center for Science Education, insisted in The Dallas Morning News, “There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution.”
At the same time, I was preparing a binder of one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which biologists described significant problems with the theory—a binder later presented to the board during my testimony.
 So I knew—unequivocally—that Dr. Scott was misrepresenting the status of scientific opinion about the theory in the relevant scientific literature. I also knew that her attempts to prevent students from hearing about significant problems with evolutionary theory would have likely made Charles Darwin himself uncomfortable. In On the Origin of Species, Darwin openly acknowledged important weaknesses in his theory and professed his own doubts about key aspects of it.
Yet today’s public defenders of a Darwin-only science curriculum apparently do not want these, or any other scientific doubts about contemporary Darwinian theory, reported to students.
This book addresses Darwin’s most significant doubt and what has become of it. It examines an event during a remote period of geological history in which numerous animal forms appear to have arisen suddenly and without evolutionary precursors in the fossil record, a mysterious event commonly referred to as the “Cambrian explosion.” As he acknowledged in the Origin, Darwin viewed this event as a troubling anomaly—one that he hoped future fossil discoveries would eventually eliminate.
The book is divided into three main parts. Part One, “The Mystery of the Missing Fossils,” describes the problem that first generated Darwin’s doubt—the missing ancestors of the Cambrian animals in the earlier Precambrian fossil record—and then tells the story of the successive, but unsuccessful, attempts that biologists and paleontologists have made to resolve that mystery.
Part Two, “How to Build an Animal,” explains why the discovery of the importance of information to living systems has made the mystery of the Cambrian explosion more acute. Biologists now know that the Cambrian explosion not only represents an explosion of new animal form and structure but also an explosion of information—that it was, indeed, one of the most significant “information revolutions” in the history of life. Part Two examines the problem of explaining how the unguided mechanism of natural selection and random mutations could have produced the biological information necessary to build the Cambrian animal forms. This group of chapters explains why so many leading biologists now doubt the creative power of the neo-Darwinian mechanism and it presents four rigorous critiques of the mechanism based on recent biological research.
Part Three, “After Darwin, What?” evaluates more current evolutionary theories to see if any of them explain the origin of form and information more satisfactorily than standard neo-Darwinism does.
Part Three also presents and assesses the theory of intelligent design as a possible solution to the Cambrian mystery.
 A concluding chapter discusses the implications of the debate about design in biology for the larger philosophical questions that animate human existence. As the story of the book unfolds, it will become apparent that a seemingly isolated anomaly that Darwin acknowledged almost in passing has grown to become illustrative of a fundamental problem for all of evolutionary biology:
the problem of the origin of biological form and information.
To see where that problem came from and why it has generated a crisis in evolutionary biology, we need to begin at the beginning: with Darwin’s own doubt, with the fossil evidence that elicited it, and with a clash between a pair of celebrated Victorian naturalists—the famed Harvard paleontologist Louis Agassiz and Charles Darwin himself.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Bored Chemist , Cheryl (Whenever you come  back ) :

See my posts to the both of you here above .
Don't be shy , just try to accept the challenge that might change the way you perceive science  , and more,and that might make you reconsider most of what you think you know about science as well  .

Best wishes, Cheryl .

Take care .
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile

Well :

"Evolution " or rather adaptation occurs only within species : "micro-evolution" or rather micro-adaptation .

There is absolutely no scientific evidence for HOW the so-called macro-evolution occurs : no chemical theory to date can account for that , or ever .


The example I gave you clearly is one of macroevolution, documented in recent times, and there are others if you're interested.  And the "how," or the mechanism, is exactly the same as microevolution - DNA, mutation and natural selection. There's no gap here, Don, and saying there is one, over and over, will not make it so.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4714
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
The problem seems to arise from two causes.

1. Some people think that "species" has a fixed and meaningful definition. Fact is, it doesn't. Biologists categorise things for convenience, as we all do, but their categories are assigned on the basis of similarities with no particularly fixed boundaries. The closest we get to a hard-edged definition is the notion that all members of a species can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, but practically all honey bees and worker ants are sterile yet clearly members of a species, and most of the living things on this planet reproduce asexually. There is no single definition of species.

2. The second  big problem is the failure to comprehend the magnitude of biological success, and the paucity of prehistoric data. Mitochondrial DNA studies suggest that all extant humans and dogs are descended from very few ancestral individuals. It seems absurd that there could at one time have been only four proto-humans or two archedogs, but these few clearly had some advantage over their contemporaries and outbred them by several orders of magnitude over suceeding generations. Now we have reason to believe that there were millions or billions of dinosaurs at one time, yet the number of actual skeletons  (as distinct from museum casts) is in the dozens as the conditions for fossilisation are rare and the probabiity of finding one is very low. So it is no surprise that we only have evidence of the most successful outcomes of evolution: evolutionary dominance is absolute.
« Last Edit: 12/10/2014 00:04:23 by alancalverd »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Don, I don't know if your inclusion of the distorted paraphrasing of Darwin's views is intentional or not, but it certainly indicates a lack of integrity on the someones' part, unless they ,too, simply accepted at face value what someone else claimed that Darwin said, without bothering to verify it or look at the context.
 
Creationists are famous for quoting Darwin out of context in order to build a case that he had serious doubts about the entire idea of natural selection or evolution, or that his work was riddled with inconsistencies’.  It's pretty brazen at times.

Darwin quote by creationist: "“One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed"
Quote in context: "One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed; yet when I look to each individual organism, I can see no evidence of this. For, I am not prepared to admit that God designed the feathers in the tail of the rock-pigeon to vary in a highly peculiar manner in order that man might select such variations & make a Fan-tail; & if this be not admitted (I know it would be admitted by many persons), then I cannot see design in the variations of structure in animals in a state of nature,—those variations which were useful to the animal being preserved & those useless or injurious being destroyed."

Or this:

Darwin quote from Creationist:  “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.”
Actual quote: 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. But I can find out no such case.”

While I’m not sure what actual quote about Precambrian fossils the author refers to (because, of course, it’s not included) I suspect it was a reference to the lack of fossils with animals that had soft structures, not that he was seriously reconsidering whether new creatures were “poofed” into existence by a designing deity in the Cambrian period.

One would expect there to be things that perplexed Darwin, the mechanism – DNA - had not yet been discovered! Of course  he felt there were more questions to be answered, more data to be gathered. It’s ridiculous to portray this as “having  grave doubts.” Instead of saying “Darwin wondered why..” creationists phrase it like “Even Darwin was forced to admit....”

Finally, there are also examples of organisms, alive today and in the fossil record that demonstrate how complex structures evolved from simpler ones, including “wings, feathers, eyes, echolocation, blood clotting, molecular machines, the amniotic egg, skin, nervous systems, and multicellularity, to name just a few” that your author refers to. But if I were to provide explanations or citations for any or all of them, you would just ignore them anyway. Nor would you provide us with any examples of the “better explanatory power” of your theory for these things, because it’s impossible, and you know it.
« Last Edit: 12/10/2014 03:31:37 by cheryl j »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4714
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Face it, there are two ways of looking at the world

A. It's magic

B. It's complicated

A is insufferable vanity: "I understand it but it's way beyond your comprehension". Or it may be intellectual failure: "I don't know or care, but I hope it's all organised by a man with a beard in the sky."

B is science.

There are places where proponents of A feel welcome and can be cared for by kind people who think B. What worries me is the vituperation heaped on the B-thinkers by every generation of A-sellers, from mediaeval popes to present day jihadists and creationists. Why are nonthinkers so obnoxious?
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3921
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
SingleCelledOrganism ^ n = HigherLifeForm

when n = 1 we begin the initial life cycle

Evolution = f(SingleCelledOrganism)

f(SingleCelledOrganism) = n * SingleCelledOrganism

n = f(ChangeInGeneticConfiguration)
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Cheryl, alancalverd  ...  :

I am in fact no full  fan of US ID or of any other theory of nature or beyond .....I never stick to any theory of nature , knowledge , models ...or beyond, a full  100 % , so to speak , since all knowledge is hypothetical , including the scientific one,and can thus never proven to be "true ", ever   .

I am not against ID  either , needless to add,since it is not yet proven to be false thus , a full 100 % or fundamentally  .

I deal with all the scientific spectrum in the same way ,relatively speaking .I try to filter science from all those approaches or perceptions of science , that is   .

I try to separate science from its world views or theories of nature of the moment .

 i just brought up ID  to mention the many flaws of Darwinism that's more of an ideology than a scientific theory,since it is a materialistic theory , in the sense that materialism  assumes that there can be only material or "natural" processes behind everything ,including behind the origin of life , evolution of life , consciousness, human language , and the rest ,since everything is just matter thus , according to materialism   .

That said :

Neither of you did address the above key mentioned  issues or objections  raised by either my earlier posts ,or  by that  excerpt of Meyer here above , concerning Darwinism , the origin of life , life information ..., an excerpt that shows that there has been many forms of dissent within the materialist mainstream scientific community itself regarding Darwinism and more  .
Nobody is denying that there is some form of natural selection at work through mutations ....It's just that natural selection ( Analogous to the mysterious  " invisible hand " of the market lol ) cannot account for the rich diversity and complexity of life , let alone for the added biological or life information that's necessary to account for novel forms and novel body plans ....to mention just that .

Not to mention the Cambrian explosion where whole complex species appeared suddenly without preexisting simpler forms or simpler ancestors ,and where the fossil record or evidence contradicted Darwinism .

Darwin himself was puzzled by that and admitted that he could find no explanation to that , and that his theory might turn out to be false  ,if future scientists wouldn't be able to solve that Cambrian dilemma ,for example .

Many attempts have been conducted so far to solve the Cambrian dilemma ,since Darwin, up to this date , in vain still ,as far as i can tell at least .

Darwin even sent a copy of his "On the origin of species " to the famous US naturalist Agassiz who even tried to go through the same voyage that was done by Darwin ...and who did study Darwin's mentioned book thoroughly and rigorously .

Agassiz ' response to Darwin was that the Cambrian explosion posed a lethal dilemma to Darwinism ...

Agassiz was a brilliant scientist in the full sense of the term , despite all attacks against him for daring to challenge the Darwinist orthodoxy  that scientific way , even though he was some sort of an idealist too .

Anyway , that  is a very broad subject to deal with this way , so :
I suggest going back to the subject matter of this thread , even though the materialist Darwinian theory  of evolution is a part of it , which is :

"Manifesto for a post-materialistic science", since materialism is certainly false , fundamentally at least , thanks to an overwhelming body of evidence , once again , so, all its extensions are fundamentally false , including the mainstream materialist "scientific world view ", including the materialist versions of the origin of life , evolution of life , origin of human language , theory of consciousness, even though they might contain  some elements of "truth" , here and there, to some extent at least , if we would take into consideration the fact that the nature of reality is partly "physical or material " thus = The nature of life , the origin of life , evolution of life and the rest cannot be separated from the nature of reality : They all depend on the nature of reality or on our theories of reality or nature    .
 


Since materialism is false , then the nature of reality cannot be just material or physical, whatever the latter might mean in the light of quantum physics anyway , but also mental .

The latter that's irreducible to "matter " , and that has serious implications for all extensions of materialism indeed :

 For example , evolution cannot be just biological , the origin of life cannot be explained by just chemical or material biological processes , .....= material processes are NOT the only ways to explain nature or the universe , the mental ones must also be integrated as an option, and as a  primary one at that , that is .

Not to mention the fact that quantum theory has been showing that there is no separation between what we call matter and mind ,and that our "reality " is psycho-physical = there is no separation between the observer and the observed ,and that the illusory physical reality cannot exist without consciousness .

All scientific theories, models , knowledge ...have no choice but to integrate consciousness into their frameworks , otherwise , they would be just delivering distorted or "half " versions of "reality " .

In short :
The materialist theory of nature , together with all its extensions thus , is fundamentally false , and must be replaced by a non-materialist theory of nature that has more explanatory power indeed .The latter has been showing that it does have more explanatory power through an overwhelming body of evidence thus .

Scientists have thus no choice but to follow the line of evidence wherever it might take them , instead of sticking to the fundamentally false materialist theory of nature and to all its fundamentally false extensions that dogmatic unscientific way .

The non-materialist theory of nature thus is NOT the last or final word in science , and it might turn out to be fundamentally false too, in its turn, just to pave the way for the rise of another theory of nature with more explanatory power , and so on and on and on , since all knowledge remains hypothetical , no matter how much explanatory power it might deliver , and thus cannot be proven to be "true " , ever , as Popper taught us .

Time for science to move on and abandon materialism thus , and hence to abandon the search for exclusively material physical or biological explanations for natural phenomena = consciousness or the mental must take its primordial and privileged place in science, since consciousness is  a KEY "component or building block " of this universe  .

P.S.: Cheryl :

How about the surgery you seem to have been gone through ? It did go well, i see . I am glad for you .Nice to have you back .



« Last Edit: 13/10/2014 18:49:20 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4714
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
To be a scientist, you need a lot of humility because, however clever your hypothesis,  the facts always win, and you rarely get to explain everything.

To be an observer of science, you need a lot of patience, because it sometimes takes years or even centuries to work out something obvious like why the sky is blue or what powers the sun.

Darwin was not a priest. He was a scientist. So you can't expect his writing to reveal all the deepest secrets of the universe, unlike L Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, or any other charlatan you care to name. The Cambrian explosion was a long time ago, and a pretty major event that lasted a lot longer than humans have been around, let alone science. So don't hold your breath waiting for an explanation, and don't denigrate the only hope we have of ever explaining it. 
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg442216#msg442216 date=1413231624]
To be a scientist, you need a lot of humility because, however clever your hypothesis,  the facts always win, and you rarely get to explain everything
.

Well, the non-materialist theory regarding the nature of reality has been supported by an overwhelming body of evidence , once again , and it has much more explanatory power than the materialist fundamentally false one , so .
Who said that one can explain "everything " ? All knowledge remains hypothetical ,so , but , materialism has been ossifying itself as to pretend to be "true " by trying to explain everything just via material processes or via physics and chemistry ONLY , by pretending that everything is matter , including the mind  .

Quote
To be an observer of science, you need a lot of patience, because it sometimes takes years or even centuries to work out something obvious like why the sky is blue or what powers the sun.

Who said otherwise ?

Quote
Darwin was not a priest. He was a scientist. So you can't expect his writing to reveal all the deepest secrets of the universe, unlike L Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, or any other charlatan you care to name. The Cambrian explosion was a long time ago, and a pretty major event that lasted a lot longer than humans have been around, let alone science. So don't hold your breath waiting for an explanation, and don't denigrate the only hope we have of ever explaining it.

Darwin was a materialist first , and a scientist second , not the other way around .
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums