"Darwin is dead, and we have killed him!"

Mathematical challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, with #DavidBerlinski, #StephenMeyer, and #DavidGelernter

Based on new #evidence and #knowledge that functioning #proteins are extremely rare, should #Darwin’s theory of evolution be dismissed, dissected, developed or replaced with a theory of intelligent design?

Has #Darwinism really failed? #PeterRobinson discusses it with David #Berlinski, David #Gelernter, and Stephen #Meyer, who have raised #doubts about Darwin’s #theory in their two books and essay, respectively #TheDeniableDarwin, #DarwinsDoubt, and “Giving Up Darwin” (published in the Claremont Review of Books).

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

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

Robinson than asks about Darwin’s main problem, #molecular #biology, to which Meyer explains, comparing it to digital world, that building a new biological function is similar to building a new #code, which Darwin could not understand in his era. Berlinski does not second this and states that the cell represents very complex machinery, with complexities increasing over time, which is difficult to explain by a theory. Gelernter throws light on this by giving an example of a necklace on which the positioning of different beads can lead to different #permutations and #combinations; it is really tough to choose the best possible combination, more difficult than finding a needle in a haystack. He seconds Meyer’s statement that it was impossible for Darwin to understand that in his era, since the math is…

#science #biology #mathematics #maths #bio #research #evidence #empiricism
Darwin is dead, of course he is.

Evolution Theory however is pretty much alive...

Creationist keep on selling their rubbish based on stuff, that is 50 or more years old...
They love to ask for proof and calculations, that has been given long times before.

Nobody takes the time to present such data let alone calculations, because for scientists, this would be embarrassing. In a world, where something as complex as a natriumchloride chystal is on everyones dinner table its plain evident, that proteins simply exist, because they can.

There is not the slightest hint to some “creator”. Feel free, to believe there is one, because nobody can disprove “HIM”. But dont expect your believes to be taken seriously in a discussion of scientific facts.

Becaus the latter can be actually proven and they are.

Its not on me, to preset the proof, read Darwin and its commenters. Find out for yourself.

"#Robinson asks them to convince him "

What comes next? Prove, that the earth is a ball?

Science is not a shopping mall and its not a parliament either. The proof is available, it has been challenged by people, who play in the league and it has won.
Try to get in that league and ask some real questions, not some speculations, that where dismissed in the 1950ies.
@Hartmut Noack right you are.

These "creationists" are some very peculiar beings.

But they never understood that the only one real existing creator is ME! I did it all. ;-)
Darwin is dead, of course he is.
"God is dead. And we have killed him!" is a famous quote by #FriedrichNietzsche, known by any scholar of basic #Philosophy.
Creationists are driven by their fantasy fairy-tale religions. They cannot be any other way or they'd be unfaithful to their god(s).

Flat-Earthers, on the other hand, and just plain old idiots.
This is just more crazy stuff sent along from Theaitetos (テアイテトス) aka
One of the crazy and most banned/ignored people on the diaspora network.

He's a Pro-Hitler Anti-Semite who has been banned off of so many other pods that only the russiandiaspora will let him post these days. Only reason they keep him around is to help circulate pictures of naked women.

Don't share with him. Don't Engage with him. Put him on your ignore list and walk away.
Two atheist Jews criticize TENS → rubes on the internet think this is about Christian creationism. XD
@Theaitetos (テアイテトス) Thre is no such thing as "christian creationism". Creationism as such is disproven in the first place for all of its denominations.
@Theaitetos (テアイテトス)To compare these third level oppionion market charlatans you cite here with Nietzsche is even more creepy and in a quite unsound way, ridiculous.
BR 549 diaspora
^^^ yup. doesn't matter what denomination, Christian creationism == Jewish creationism == Muslim (when they get around to reading Darwin maybe).

agree with @Hartmut Noack here, things exist because they can.
@Theaitetos (テアイテトス) Not everything, that can exist, chooses to do so.
Vice versa not so.
@ivan zlax Nowhere in Darwins writings you will find "The strongest survive." Its always "the fittest", and the difference is tremendous. Neanderthal and Denisova people where stronger than the fragile sapiens sapiens, still they disappeared and where assimilated, because sapiens sapiens fitted better in the changing environment.
Being able to adapt to changes is the key to evolutionary success.The slavic people in the area, that is today known as Mecklenburg/Pommern thrived for 500 years while the powerfull roman empire declined in chaos, they had no legions, they conquered nothing, the adapted to anyone they met: Franks, Saxons, Vikings, Litvians etc etc, the wendic civilisation traded with everyone, the build transport ships for import/export, they used the arabic dirham silvercoins as their currency, they lived well exporting amber, fur and honey and buried their nobles in chinese silk clothes.
Thats survival of the fittest.
@ivan zlax In the english original texts written by Darwin its "fittest" where "to be fit" is defined as: "capable of adaptation".
Very interesting indeed, that russian translations distort that to "strongest", german translators tended to the very same twist. And there are all these writers in the west, who liked to distort Darwin into some vulgar "Darwinism" with "The strong survive, let the weak be destroyed!" fascism that is also behind nationalism and chauvinism of all flavours.

Darwin never said that. He simply stated, that animals and plants, that fit in their surroundings, will thrive and those who go against them, will disappeare.

Trying to deny, to be a member of a given species, is not the best way to adapt. And its a lie, It was your ancestors as well, in direct lineage, who obliterated the Denisova people.

With my polish and sorbic ancestors I would have some reason, to deny being german. I dont, I take the advantage and the responsibility.
@ivan zlax You really achieve to suprise me, kudos. Good, that I have not blocked you.

Also I agree regarding Kropotkin. When I look at the schools, that my 2 boys attend to, I see, that in the first 4 classes the idea of mutual respect and support is promoted by the teachers, simply because it works to get peacefull and productive relations.
Later the staff tries to implement an idea of "fair competition" in order to raise people, that are willing to compete in the rat race of capitalism. But if you really tell them about concepts as developed by Kropotkin and similar, they can become immune to the indoctrination of totalitarian capitalism and vulgar social "Darwinism". They still remember how good it feels to live with others with mutual respect and support and they begin to reject the ideology of social "Darwinism".