Logic and evolution: Darwin theory is not scientific (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, April 10, 2019, 13:37 (2053 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: "For example, Lenski’s 70,000 generations of E. coli show that evolution is highly constrained – unable to produce the innovations necessary to change body plans over time or to produce new molecular machinery. The orphan genes that are prevalent in all life-forms cannot be explained by the evolution observed in these studies.”

Agreed. The central problem for evolution is how speciation occurred, but we have no modern examples of innovation (as opposed to adaptation). We have discussed three theories to explain innovation: random mutations; cellular intelligence; an unknown, sourceless mind preprogramming or dabbling the whole of life. There is no clear evidence for any of these.

DAVID: Darwin developed his theory logically from incomplete and incorrect information. As contrary findings have continuously appeared, shoehorning and contriving them have ended in an 'extended evolutionary synthesis' which is convoluted and draws intense criticism as in this book. Study of the genome by CRISPR techniques has sown how the very complexity that is found demands design did it.

The heading tells it all: “Darwin theory is not scientific”. Darwin, Dawkins and you have all scientifically examined the facts known in your day, and have come up with your different conclusions (agnostic, atheistic, theistic). These cannot be tested or proven. Peas in a pod.

DAVID (under “Junk DNA goodbye"): The article goes on at much length to describe five different types of RNA's with functions. Apparently there is not much junk DNA and Darwinists have said if there is no junk DNA Darwin is wrong.

And I have pointed out that lack of junk supports the Darwinist argument that natural selection generally ensures that only what is useful will survive. If your Darwinists are too stupid to realize that, then more fool them.