John Endler, geneticist..The
Process of Evolution: Toward A New
Synthesis,
J.A. Endler and T. McLellan, 1988. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics,
19, 397."Novel
(new) biochemical functions seem to be rare in evolution, and the basis
for their origin is virtually unknown."
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
Mathematical Challenges
to the Neo Darwinian Interpretation
of Evolution, P.S. Moorhead and M.M. Kaplan,
Wistar Institute Press, Philadelphia, PA, page 75, Algorithms and the Neo
Darwinian Theory of Evolution, by M. Schützenberger, 1967."There
is a considerable gap in the neo Darwinian theory of evolution and we believe
this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot
be bridged with the current conception of biology."
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
Stephen Gould (Professor
of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University) in.Time
Magazine.said
"No scientific theory including evolution can pose a threat to religion."
Is that because religion
is based upon faith in God, the source of truth, and evolution based upon
conjecture,
a mechanism for error?
In a speech in October 1983:.As
reported in John Lofton’s Journal,.The
Washington Times, February 8, 1984.."We’re
not just evolving slowly. For all practical purposes we’re not evolving.
There’s no reason to think we’re going to get bigger brains or smaller
toes or whatever—we are what we are."
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
"When you have eliminated
the impossible, whatever remains (at that point in time), however improbable
it may seem must be the truth."....
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's.The
Sign of Four.
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
Ken Bingman, pro.(for).evolution;
science teacher, Kansas, U.S.A.,.recently
(November 1999) dropped all references to macro
evolution in drawing up standards for science instruction in Kansas.
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
UCLA Berkeley Professor Phillip
Johnson-considers the weakness of evolution's scientific standing, where
"an honest appraisal
of the evidence would sweep evolution convincingly into the dustbin of
history".
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
Here an evolutionary expositor
reaches conclusions in favor of Darwinism based on an emotional feeling
of the way things ought to be. Not a great way to approach scientific matters!
Steve Jones, Professor of
Genetics at University College, London says "I'm amazed by the power of
Darwin's argument. I'm astonished at how well all the facts (note he says.all,
and as we've seen throughout the first
page, all the facts are not even known of which he speaks, and obviously
much less understood by him) of today, from molecular biology to animal
behavior to dating the earth,.all.fit
into his (Darwin's) framework (theory of evolution)." They do! ??? Now
that's a big order to accept! Do they.really?
Throughout this subject many ludicrously.erroneous.presumptions
based on evolutionary theory have been examined.
Jones
is adamant Darwin's
theory is irrefutable.
Why
it is to him.
Jones admits he refuses
to address consciousness, and admits he doesn't understand what it is?
Hmmmm! Is it not being aware that you exist and are awake? Or is it that
annoying time between naps? Jones states "I've read several books on it
(consciousness) and can't
make head or tail of what it's all about." Hey Steve? It's about living!
Because – the highest level of consciousness is the ability to set goals,
making decisions as it were, in order to direct one's life according to
one's heartfelt feelings.
Steve looks like the type
of guy who would be a good friend, easy to have fun with. I'll bet he enjoys
his life, and laughs a lot. And by the way he puts forth his ideas, I'm
sure he's not afraid to have fun poked at him.
Was there any spill over
from Steve's consciousness concerns into the way he arrives at evolutionary
conclusions? Steve, if you're having such trouble with consciousness, can
we trust your reasoning regarding evolution?
Jones also misses addressing
the question, If we are evolving, why are we evolving? Jones prefers instead
to add to Darwin's.Origin
of Species.with
explanations of the HIV virus (he missed it here too)
in his book.Darwin's
Ghost: The Origin of Species Updated.Jones
says "Darwin was pretty much ("pretty much" is the terminology
of a behaviorial
'scientist') right about everything." Oh, really? Ha! ha!
Nothing it seems,
but
one thing, will alter the fixed perceptions of some. A cannibal may
forever believe that eating another human is ok. Perhaps he fears no other
food source can be found in abundance. Perhaps he is ignorant of alternate
forms of food. Perhaps his belief structure includes seeing others' brains,
eyes, tongues, etc. as increasing his own capabilities if he consumes them.
People hold onto their beliefs for many reasons that must make sense to
them. Those believing in evolution can be asked if it's their grandfather
or grandmother through whom they claim descent from a monkey.
All of us possess many complex
psychological patterns for doing and thinking as we do. Who's to say when
a mind opens to new information, or conversely, closes even more to it,
perhaps having been offended, thereby preventing further interest in the
information? Who is to say that when a mind is open, how much is understood
of what it is open to. Who's to say how much will be accepted in making
a change of opinion or a change in life itself? Who's to say how much anyone
is interested in anything apart from their own world anyhow? Even in this
we see complexity, and in those with closed mindedness, we see irreducible
complexity.....continues
.
