• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Quotes critical of evolution

At Wistar, evolutionary theory was destroyed by mathematical facts.

No it wasn't.

Schroeder cites a Wistar institute conference as showing evidence of the improbability of evolution. The symposium was transcribed from audio and published in 1967 as Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, a Symposium Held at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology April 25 and 26, 1966, Paul Moorhead and Martin Kaplan, eds. Needless to say, this is quite out of date. Worse, it does not support Schroeder at all. Only one paper comes anywhere near proposing that the origin of life and subsequent evolution is improbable: Murray Eden, "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory" (pp. 5-20). He does not really argue that evolution is improbable, but rather that no present theory accounts for certain peculiarities of life on earth, especially the fact that all living organisms are composed of a very tiny fraction of all the possible proteins.

In particular, Eden argues that given all "polypeptide chains of length 250 [amino acids] or less...There are about 20^250 such words or about 10^325" (p. 7). This number is ripe for quoting, but it does not stand as the odds against life, and even Eden did not even imply such a meaning--to the contrary, he admits that perhaps "functionally useful proteins are very common in this space [of 10^325 arrangements]," and facing tough criticism in a discussion period (where his paper was torn apart, pp. 12-9) he was forced to admit again that perhaps "there are other domains in this tremendous space which are equally likely to be carriers of life" (p. 15). But his main argument is that life is concentrated around a tiny fraction of this possible protein development "space" and we have yet to explain why--although his critics point out why in discussion: once one system involving a score of proteins was selected, none others could compete even if they were to arise, thus explaining why all life has been built on one tiny set of proteins. One thing that even his critics in discussion missed is the fact that his number is wrong: he only calculates the number of those chains that are 250 acids long, but he refers to all those and all smaller chains, and to include all of those he must sum the total combinations for every chain from length 1 to 250. Of course, the number "250" is entirely arbitrary to begin with. He could have picked 100, 400, or 20. He gives no arguments for his choice, and as we have seen, this can have nothing to do with the first life, whose chain-length cannot be known or even guessed at [5].

Among the huge flaws in Eden's paper, pointed out by his critics, is that he somehow calculates, without explanation, that 120 point mutations would require 2,700,000 generations (among other things, he assumes a ridiculously low mutation rate of 1 in 1 million offspring). But in reality, even if only 1 mutation dominates a population every 20 generations, it will only take 2400 generations to complete a 120-point change--and that even assumes only 1 point mutation per generation, yet chromosome mixing and gene-pool variation will naturally produce many at a time, and mix and match as mating proceeds. Moreover, a beneficial gene can dominate a population faster than 20 generations, and will also be subject to further genetic improvements even before it has reached dominance. I discuss all of these problems in my analysis of Schroeder above. But in the same Wistar symposium publication, C. H. Waddington (in his "Summary Discussion") hits the nail so square on the head that I will quote his remarks at great length:

The point was made that to account for some evolutionary changes in hemoglobin, one requires about 120 amino acid substitutions...as individual events, as though it is necessary to get one of them done and spread throughout the whole population before you could start processing the next one...[and] if you add up the time for all those sequential steps, it amounts to quite a long time. But the point the biologists want to make is that that isn't really what is going on at all. We don't need 120 changes one after the other. We know perfectly well of 12 changes which exist in the human population at the present time. There are probably many more which we haven't detected, because they have such slight physiological effects...[so] there [may be] 20 different amino acid sequences in human hemoglobins in the world population at present, all being processed simultaneously...Calculations about the length of time of evolutionary steps have to take into account the fact that we are dealing with gene pools, with a great deal of genetic variability, present simultaneously. To deal with them as sequential steps is going to give you estimates that are wildly out." (pp. 95-6)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html#Wistar
 
It is only "interesting" as a lesson in how deluded, narrow minded bigots think - and what dark world they want us all to inhabit.
 
Notice how the artical never quotes what was said at the meetings, it quotes creationist books that quote the meeting. Primary sources are more reliable than secondary ones, especially ones with reputations for cherrypicking, taking quotes out of context, and grossly (and sometimes intentionally) misunderstanding the point the person was trying to make due to their misunderstanding of evolution and science in general.
 
That's your opinion. My opinion is that they are.

I'm sure all the views that this thread and that page will get will prove how no one is interested..
I'm more interested in how liars ... you know ... catapult the propaganda. Not so much in the propaganda itself.
 
For example, one of the mathematicians, *Murray Eden of MIT, explained that life could not begin by the "random selection," which is the basic pillar of evolutionary teaching. Yet he said that if randomness is set aside, then only "design" would remain—and that would require purposive planning by an Intelligence.

Wrong! Evolution is concerned with living things. How life began is another question and another theory. Look up Abiogenesis.

How can evolution be destroyed when the destroyers don't understand the concept?
 
How can evolution be destroyed when the destroyers don't understand the concept?

They do. They bank on the general public not understanding the concept. That way, they can sound convincing, and sway those who don't know the difference.

Don't think for a moment that they don't understand. They do. They are frauds, pure and simple.
 
Wrong! Evolution is concerned with living things. How life began is another question and another theory.

True, but for life to evolve it has to come from somewhere, right? Where did it come from? Most people postulate an axiomatic naturalistic explanation.
 
Wrong! Evolution is concerned with living things. How life began is another question and another theory. Look up Abiogenesis.

How can evolution be destroyed when the destroyers don't understand the concept?

Not to mention that "random selection" is completely wrong. The random element of evolution is very small from generation to generation. The improbability involved in abiogenesis should not be confused with the improbability involved in subsequent biological evolution. Even if abiogenesis is extremely improbable, it only need have occurred once in the vastness of the universe for us to be discussing it now. By contrast, the improbability involved in each successive step in the evolution of of a species (parents to offspring) is tiny. Murray Eden may be a mathematician but he's obviously no biologist. I wouldn't take my car to the veterinarian.

P.S. I realize I'm preaching to the choir, but I'm one of many that T'ai Chi at least claims to have on ignore for, well, writing things like the above.
 
True, but for life to evolve it has to come from somewhere, right? Where did it come from? Most people postulate an axiomatic naturalistic explanation.

This is classic T'ai. "That gap must be where God lives." For God to exist he must have come from somewhere, right?
 
I'm sure all the views that this thread and that page will get will prove how no one is interested..

That will show nothing.

I'm sure most in here will agree that a page properly disposing of evolution would be the most interesting page in the history of The Web. A page with a bad and flawed attempt at said, however, is nothing new and not at all interesting.

But since we can not (in principle) assess whether or not it's solid (and therefore interesting), we'll have to click on it first. So there.
 

Back
Top Bottom