[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

There are four major mistakes or errors of Biological Evolution that could NO longer be defended by any fair and honest proponents of Evolution. These are the basis, the exclusivities, the methodologies and limited view of reality.

The worst is that Evolution had messed reality more. Proponents of ToE are thinking and boasting that they have tons and tons of evidences or tens of tens of thousands of proofs, but Evolution has none at all!

See the details!

Advertising removed

AFTER you read the details, let us discuss those four one at a time.

[alancalverd]

When did you last look in a mirror?

Did you look exactly like both of your parents?

If not, you have Evolved from them.

That's all it means. Not a theory, an observation.

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

There are four major mistakes or errors of Biological Evolution that could NO longer be defended by any fair and honest proponents of Evolution. These are the basis, the exclusivities, the methodologies and limited view of reality.

The worst is that Evolution had messed reality more. Proponents of ToE are thinking and boasting that they have tons and tons of evidences or tens of tens of thousands of proofs, but Evolution has none at all!

See the details!

Advertising removed

AFTER you read the details, let us discuss those four one at a time.

 For me it lacks a primordial consciousness for life to occur.
  It it's a must in order to exist.
  Life can occur naturally as much as the universe could create a computer by chance in an accidental wherever.

 Still it would require a software, a system.

 Consious life "requires" instructions in order to be created.
 Even if that consious/instructions are binary, geometrical or mathematical, it doubles.
  A cell must recive environmental instructions in order to "have" instructions.

 Don't see other way out of this, at least not one which doesn't result into a lifeless shape which has the resemblance of a cell.

[Deecart]

Evolution is only a general concept.
Concerning the details it depend of the "thing" you are talking about.
Bacteries do not evolve like a shrimps, a flower or a human.
And this concept also apply to companies.

[Origin]

Consious life "requires" instructions in order to be created.

I agree but those 'instructions' are the natural laws of the universe.  Under the right conditions and with only the natural laws of physics and chemistry life can arise.  And evolution of that life can end up resulting people.

[alancalverd]

 Consious life "requires" instructions in order to be created.

Not true. The "instructions" are needed for cells to replicate, and once formed (by the laws of physics and chemistry) they can evolve into all sorts of interesting things and a few very dull ones that believe in magic.

[Deecart]

Life can occur naturally as much as the universe could create a computer by chance in an accidental wherever.

If there could only be 1 computer, the chance to get THE computer is very small, i agree.
But, there can be MANY computer, so the chance is much higher.
Furthermore, you can think that (one of) the first form of life (leading to the many other form of life and here we can observe convergent evolution : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution) is not due to random but is the normal evolution of the matter : Perhaps life do not appear by chance, but is the logical succession of the matter.

[Deecart]

Something else that should be taken in account :
I often hear about this "instruction" thing, like if the DNA would store instructions.
It is not.
A single "instruction" (so a triplet of nucleotids and it is why we talk about "code" and instruction) only code for one of the aminoacids (there can be 20, 21, or less of more depending of the era, we dont know  how many and how the firts aminoacids were coded).
But an amicoacid can be coded by more than 1 nucleotid triplet.
1 aminoacid do nothing !
It is not an instruction like in computer.
It is only one part of the more longer molecule called "protein" .

A protein can have some chemical activity, so the "instruction" if you want to tell it so, is at least the whole protein, so the whole ADN wich code for the protein (because of the degenerated code of the DNA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codon_degeneracy)
There are many possibilities to code for EXACTLY the same protein.
And there are many proteins that can have almost the same effect with or without some of their aminoacid (possibility to have many codes to produce the same function)

[puppypower]

DNA is like the hard drive of a computer. It has all the data needed to make any given life form. The DNA is an extremely stable molecular data base. But like a hard drive, it is a passive device, that needs to be acted upon, to give up its data. Without action the data stays tucked away for long term storage stability.

The cell body, which is composed of all types of proteins, controls the DNA hard drive. These protein come from the DNA hard drive. Protein has muscle, while DNA only has data. This distinction prioritizes action; grid, and reaction; hard drive.

Red blood cells for example, lose their DNA at maturity. They continue to function for weeks, by running off the protein data in the cell body. They have no need for any further data from the DNA.

When cells replicate to form two daughter cells, the protein grid; cell body materials of the mother cell, is duplicated along with her DNA. The duplication of the DNA, requires that the DNA be taken off line and packed away into chromosomes. While the DNA hard drive is off line, the protein grid continues to function and drives the rest of the cell cycle dynamics. After the two daughter cells separate, the DNA is unpacked by the protein grids, sending in the enzymes to fire up the hard drive. 

One of the main conceptual problems with evolution is that, is in its current form, it gives too much credit to the DNA, for being like a brain, and not enough credit to the interactive protein grid that interfaces the DNA to the environment. The result is the over dependence on casino math to supply fudge factors for the DNA brain.

The protein gird approach offers a simple way to explain multicellular differentiation. All the cells in your body have the same DNA, but each cell type has only specific functions. The protein grid of each cell will set a protein capacitance, that uses the hard drive in its own unique way. This also allows for extended cellular differentiation control via the extended protein grids, from the brain and nervous tissue branches.

As an analogy, say have a large hard drive full of data, with many computer terminals that can access this data via a network. Each terminal has it own experiments to do; unique protein gird, with each accessing just the data it needs. Stem cells bodies; stem cell protein grids, have a more flexible grid pattern, that allows for adding new data and shutting off old data. 

[Bored chemist]

The result is the over dependence on casino math to supply fudge factors for the DNA brain.

Nonsense.

it gives too much credit to the DNA, for being like a brain, and not enough credit to the interactive protein grid that interfaces the DNA

All that protein was produced because it was encoded for in the DNA.
That's why the DNA is typically given priority.

[alancalverd]

Watch, not necessarily this space but certainly the relevant scientific literature on the subject of embryonic cell differentiation. I had an interesting discussion yesterday with a researcher in this area, from which I gather that Alan Turing's hypothesis that differentiation can be explained by geometry and diffusion equations seems to be true.

[aspagnito]

Evolution as such is not a false concept. Darwinism is bullshit. The theory of evolution says that “the adapted will survive”, and this is the conclusion of Alfred Russel Wallace, which she stole along with Darwin’s biography. Darwin never traveled, the birds of paradise found Wallace and sold them (and Darwin bragged about it), and it was Wallace who fell on “surviving the adapted” in malaria fever, not Darwin “when watching turtles on the Galapagos Islands. ”

It’s all bullshit and they feed the kids in high school, but it doesn’t matter. Darwinism cannot be right because it assumes that in each generation a tiny change in DNA either causes the young to die or keeps this “new and better” code in its offspring. Well, in the 1980s, a very important conference was held in Chicago, where it was proved that this was nonsense. Using different animals, it was shown that the smallest changes in DNA are practically always lethal to organisms and that it cannot be a mechanism for improving DNA.

Some time ago, there was a man like Count Lehndorff who crossed racehorses and noticed that the best genetic results are achieved by alternating inbred and outbred – inbred-outbred-inbred. It turns out that even Inbred or its hardcore version, incest, are advantageous under certain conditions. In Darwinism, it was said that animals pass seamlessly from one species to another, but we don’t watch that -- we see, on a time scale of 10 million years, that a species lives and dies, and new species come along as they exist. These are probably hybrids created by incest-hybridisation-incest.

If only a few specimens of an extinct species are left, they first indulge in incest and then search for a similar species, of the same genus, which preferably also has incestuous representatives. Then such incestuous individuals cross, and a hybrid is created that crosses incestuously for several generations to come – and that guarantees not only improved genes, more strength and performance, but also a much greater fertility – the new hybrids are much more invasive than their predecessors. This process is probably widespread and not new, but it is usually very rare, considering that a new species experiencing a period of growth, flowering and decline usually takes 10 million years.

If only a few specimens of an extinct species are left, they first indulge in incest and then search for a similar species, of the same genus, which preferably also has incestuous representatives. Every time animals have genes that are better than their original species, and Darwinism itself is an unimportant element.

Another theory that probably supports the theory of evolution is the supermutant theory – only occasionally – very rarely that a young animal is born into a population that has some kind of Down syndrome, but that genetic syndrome is so advantageous that it offers better survival – and an individual who fixes the genes in his population. Thus, most likely, the first man – the first woman – was born. Because chimpanzees are not selective in choosing their mate, and human women are. That would explain why the men are less strong than the great primate apes and why we look better than them.

We also develop faster, because in order to have children with a human woman, we have to impress her with something. The couples cross, and a hybrid is created, which also crosses incestuously over several generations – and that guarantees not only improved genes, more vitality and performance, but also a much greater fertility – the new hybrids are very invasive. More than their predecessors. This process is probably widespread and not new, but it is usually very rare, considering that a new species experiencing a period of growth, flowering and decline usually takes 10 million years.
Later, humans experienced a cognitive revolution caused by a virus – a virus that is still part of our DNA and improves thinking (viruses account for about 80% of DNA and therefore part of the theory of evolution).

We had a fantasy. There’s an experiment, a chimpanzee in the jungle sees a woman with a colorful backpack. A chimp wants to steal the woman’s backpack, so he entertains her with a game of chopsticks. At some point, they enjoy themselves so much that they are distracted – both that a chimpanzee steals a woman’s backpack at the height of their amusement and escapes with it to a tree. This proves that chimpanzees have imagination, can think abstractly and plan. But they don’t have human achievements that are responsible for the cognitive revolution, or they don’t have FANTASY.

Imagination as a reaction of imagination to a person’s emotional states. The “wild monkey” who walks around Buddhists on their heads and distracts them during meditation (this really has nothing to do with monkeys and is just a human quality that monkeys don’t have). Chimpanzees without imagination can solve some problems much better – there is a game in which chimpanzees are better because the imagination interferes, i. e. numbers from 1 to 20 appear briefly on the screen, and the chimpanzee has to touch the spot after those numbers on the screen when those numbers disappear on the screen. In order to support this thesis, research should be carried out on human groups in which different professions require different levels of creativity.

Chimpanzees also have something that only humans have. Only chimpanzees have a so-called “war mechanism”, just like humans, and only they wage wars like humans. So when the first humans lived in certain groups and indulged inbred or incest there, the war mechanism caused the wars to improve the genes – inbred (incest) -outbred (hybridisation) -inbred (incest) -inbred (incest) and to make the exodus to different parts of the world more and more perfect forms of man. When successive human forms settled in successive territories and attained cultural achievements, their conquest made sense to mankind, for the “soldian rape” gave rise to new and more perfect human forms, which inherited the heritage of their ancestors and were more capable of further perfection.

Globalisation, however, came about when information took precedence over transport. In the past, transport was more important than information – to communicate informally to two continents, a letter had to be sent by sea – but when one day the first transatlantic telegraph line was put into operation, it was first communicated informally and then transported according to such an agreement – from that moment on, the day that this telegraph was opened, we date the global (Applause From then on, we can talk about the age of globalisation, but also about man’s preparation to leave the globe.

[Bored chemist]

. Darwin never traveled,

Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Survey_voyage_on_HMS_Beagle

[Bored chemist]

Chimpanzees also have something that only humans have.

Pardon?

[Bored chemist]

Darwinism cannot be right because it assumes that in each generation a tiny change in DNA either causes the young to die or keeps this “new and better” code in its offspring.

No, it doesn't.

[Origin]

Well, in the 1980s, a very important conference was held in Chicago, where it was proved that this was nonsense.

This is inaccurate, but a source for this 'proof' would be interesting to see.  Got one?
 

In Darwinism, it was said that animals pass seamlessly from one species to another

Darwinism is not a real thing, that is a made up term from anti-science religious people.  What do you mean by 'pass seamlessly from one species to another'.

Then such incestuous individuals cross, and a hybrid is created that crosses incestuously for several generations to come

Incest cannot make a hybrid.

If only a few specimens of an extinct species are left, they first indulge in incest and then search for a similar species, of the same genus, which preferably also has incestuous representatives. Every time animals have genes that are better than their original species,

No, there is no evidence that something like that occurs.

Because chimpanzees are not selective in choosing their mate, and human women are

False, on multiple levels.

That would explain why the men are less strong than the great primate apes and why we look better than them.

We aren't as strong as the other apes because our muscles evolved to allow use to use our fine motor skills.  In other words we gave up strength for digital dexterity.  A chimpanzee may be able to rip our arms off, but it would be impossible for him to thread a needle.
Gorilla's think other gorillas look better than humans, by the way.
I see no need to read further your post is full of many misconceptions I suggest you read up on what evolution is actually about.

[alancalverd]

In Darwinism, it was said that animals pass seamlessly from one species to another,

Not true. Successive generations evolve. The concept of "species" is not scientifically defined and is applied retrospectively to groups of animals that we consider "sufficiently distinct". Humans like arbitrary boundaries like speed limits, national boundaries, drinking age, etc but it would be foolish to pretend that they are anything more than a matter of convenience.

[aspagnito]

Sorry for my English, the translator got worse recently.
If we speak about Darwin travelling, the story is full of lies and I do not discuss this with anyone WHO hasn't at least watched "wallace in Borneo" and "wallace in spice islands".
The problem with "there is no proof for IT" - look again. The title of this forum is "new ideas", so go find yourself those proofs.. the rest - I'm not answering this, 'cause I'm right, you're not!

[aspagnito]

YOu having problem with what I say? Nothing new. Right here on this forum I predicted Omikron as a coronavirus with a lot less intense symptoms and and making a lot more people ill - something like a better, 'cause natural vaxinne. YOu laught but few months later my predictions came true.

[Bored chemist]

I do not discuss this with anyone WHO hasn't at least watched "wallace in Borneo" and "wallace in spice islands".

Goodbye then.