Immortal4life

Molecular data, Common Descent, DNA, and the I Ching

Recommended Posts

New molecular evidence disproves common descent

 

Very cool Video explaining the basics of the theory of evolution-

 

Evidence against evolution -The HAR-1 Gene

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im0-LTqOHxs

 

Examples of species that did not change for 100 million years-

 

Audio interview-"Brain Evolution" Gene Reveals evolution to be false

PodcastDirectory | Episode: Podcast

 

So modern science for quite some time now, has believed that humans shared a common ancestor with Apes. Estimates of when humans branched off from apes range from about 4-2 million years ago, 10 million max being extremely generous......but about the time that the so called Australapithicus, or "Lucy", existed on Earth. In the past some scientists actually believed Lucy was an ancestor of humans though most now claim she was a supposed "cousin". Anyways, what this means, is that science claims that we had brains about the size of Lucy, which is very similar to a Chimpanzee's brain size, 2-4 million years ago. What this then means is that humans allegedly TRIPLED their brainsize in a few million years. This is completely outside the scope and range of what is considered normal evolutionary progress, as far as the past goes at least.

 

and more-

Brainstorms: New molecular evidence against common descent

Last year it was reported that humans have three dozen unique protein coding genes when compared to chimps and now we find that of the 244 newly discovered microRNA genes 10% are unique to humans (not found in any other organism). Chimp also has unique microRNA genes. Apparently, this "junk" makes the species. At last we know.

 

Common descent of humans and chimps cannot be true due to the fact of novel genes in humans not present in chimps, such as the presented microRNA genes. I have abandoned Darwinian common descent.

 

and-

I don't believe that there is any evidence that "genetic drift" can lead to true speciation: suspecies yes, true species no. Speciation and the formation of the higher categories requires far more dramatic changes than can ever be effected through natural selection and sexual reproduction, both of which are entirely conservative, serving to bring evolution to a complete halt and, with very few exceptions, to ultimate extinction.

 

In my opinion we are not one of those exceptions.

 

"The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard."

Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 406

 

 

Actually more recently, the number of newly found microRNA's is over 400.

 

These newly discovered regions have been called the HAR1 genes, or "human accelerated genes". They would appear to disprove and go against common descent. Since the bigger the brain is in an animal, the harder it should be to evolve, because if there are mutation in a brain that size, they are almost inevitably harmful and fatal, and yet humans tripled their brainsize from apes in way less time than it took the whole rest of evolution, like from bacteria to animals, to happen. This doesn't make any sense now does it? It should have taken more time for humans to evolve out of animals than the whole rest of evolution before that point since creatures had way smaller brains in the beginning. There is more genetic difference between the brains of chimps and humans, than there is chimps and chickens-

HHMI News: Researchers Identify Human DNA on the Fast Track

There are only two changes in the 118 letters of DNA code that make up HAR1 between the genomes of chimps and chickens. But chimps and humans are 18 letter-changes apart.

 

“That is an incredible amount of change to have happened in a few million years,” Pollard notes.

 

Subsequent experiments looking at the brains of human and primate embryos revealed that HAR1 is part of two overlapping genes. One of these genes, called HAR1F is active in nerve cells that appear early in embryonic development and play a critical role in the formation of the layered structure of the human cerebral cortex.

 

The role of the other gene, called HAR1R, is less clear,

 

“Some DNA regions have hardly changed at all over many millions of years in most species,” said Pollard. “My twist was to look for the subset of these regions that have changed just in humans.”

 

Forty-nine regions, which the team called human accelerated regions (HARs), rose to the top of the list. Surprisingly, only two of these regions code for proteins. The majority of the regions tend to be located near genes that are involved in regulating the function of genes. Furthermore, 12 of the regions are adjacent to genes involved in the development of the brain.

 

The Nature paper looks in depth at the region that has undergone the most change in the human lineage, which the researchers called HAR1 (for human accelerated region 1). Only two of the region's 118 bases changed in the 310 million years separating the evolutionary lineages of the chicken and the chimp. Incredibly, since the human lineage separated from that of the chimp, 18 of the 118 nucleotides have changed. This region “stood out,” said Pollard.

 

But what does it do? To find out, Pollard began working with the wet lab, led by Sofie Salama. Haussler established the wet lab following his appointment as an HHMI investigator. After months of work, Salama and her lab mates determined that HAR1 is part of a larger DNA that is transcribed into RNA in the brain.

 

Then Salama got lucky. Pierre Vanderhaegen, a neuroscientist at the University of Brussels, was visiting Santa Cruz because he knew Salama's husband, who is also a neuroscientist. “I learned that Pierre was setting up to do in-situ hybridizations [at his lab in Brussels] to look at gene expression patterns in human embryonic brain samples,” said Salama. “So I gave him a DNA probe from the HAR1 region and said, `Try this.'”

 

A few months later Vanderhaegen e-mailed Salama with exciting news. He had discovered that RNA including the HAR1 region is first produced between the 7th and 9th weeks of gestation in human embryos. Furthermore, the RNA was produced by a Cajal-Retzius neuron, a particular type of cell that plays a critical role in creating the six layers of neurons in the human cortex.

 

Salama then determined that HAR1 actually lies in the region of overlap of two RNA genes that are transcribed in opposite directions along the DNA. Both genes appear to make RNAs that are not translated into proteins. The UC Santa Cruz team showed that these RNAs fold into particular shapes characterized by several helices. The changes to HAR1 during human evolution seem to have altered the length and configuration of some of these helices. “It's a brand new structure, unique,” said Salama. “The downside is that we don't have many good clues as to how it functions.”

 

And beyond HAR1 lie HAR2, HAR3, and so on through the 49 regions Pollard identified with her DNA screen. “We've only studied one of these regions carefully,” said Haussler. “Now we have to go through the other 48.”

 

How could you possibly explain this? Scientists can't even do it and are completely baffled. What type of genetic mechanism could allow for that? Some scientists have proposed that micrRNA has much more of an effect on genes than previously thought and that sciene's whole view of how genetics work must be reconsidered.

 

What are the odds of this happening through random mutations? Astronomically low.

 

To sum it up, since humans allegedly branched off from apes, there have been at the least, hundreds of thousands of mutations in hundreds of thousands of genes. This is not normal evolution by any previous precedent. Considering the harmful effects of mutations in general, it's not even really possible.

 

What I am looking for is an actual genetic mechanism for a change on this level. What do you think the odds of this occuring are. Random mutations could not pull this off and as you know, my main interest is in human evolution. The human brain is three times that of a chimpanzee, that is a giant leap in evolution by all accounts. I have yet to see a single evolutionist admit that they are supprised that the divergence is higher then expected even though the scientific literature does. We have been told for decades that we only diverge by about 1% but no it is 5%.

 

Hundreds if not thousands of mutations in hundreds if not thousands of genes is not normal evolution, it's highly accelerated. Apparently there are some 40,000 nucleotides that are known to diverge in functionally important genes. That number is going up and the mutation rate, given the deleterious effects that result from mutations makes this neat linear model a whole lot more complicated then we have been told.

 

The differences are far larger then we have been told. The genetic mechanisms for the rapid expansion of the human brain do not exist. We can chase these anecdotal evidences around all day long and at the end of the day we will still not have an evolutionary mechanism that can pull this off.

 

"A total of 251 categories showed significantly low KA/KS ratios (compared with 32 expected by chance; P < 10-4). These include a wide range of processes including intracellular signalling, metabolism, neurogenesis and synaptic transmission, which are evidently under stronger-than-average purifying selection. More generally, genes expressed in the brain show significantly stronger average constraint than genes expressed in other tissues"

 

251 discovered and 32 expected by chance and this doesn't even raise an eyebrow.

It's not normal or realistic. The difference between humans and apes was far greater than scientists predicted was possible.

 

Ok, but I know what some are going to say.....they'll say "So what? Just because we can't explain it all in detail and just because there are things we can't fully explain yet, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Just because you think it's unlikely or impossible, doesn't mean it didn't happen."

 

Well ok, but then you need to read this....

 

Now genetic data reveals that the bigger the brain the slower it should evolve, that seems to disprove the notion of "Human Accelerated Genes"

Planet of the brainy apes - Cosmic Log - msnbc.com

Science-fiction tales often fast-forward the pace of evolution to create the big-brained humans of the future - or, for that matter, the big-brained chimps of "The Planet of the Apes." Research published this week in the journal PLoS Biology, however, argues that the more complex your brain gets, the harder it is to evolve further. The subject could have implications for speculation into the future of intelligence.

 

 

From here-

Brain size and evolution: is there a valid correlation?

If humans evolved recently from chimps, the HAR1 gene must have changed rather rapidly. A news article states, “... [T]he gene [HAR1] changed so fast that Clark [professor of molecular biology at Cornell University] said that he has a hard time believing it unless something unusual happened in a mutation. It’s not part of the normal evolution, he said.”

 

 

Human Chimp difference much bigger than previously thought

Science Literature - "Truth be told" about Chimp-Human DNA comparisons

Study Sees Human, Chimp Genetics in New Light

EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY: Relative Differences: The Myth of 1% -- Cohen 316 (5833): 1836 -- Science

http://www.broad.mit.edu/media/2005/chimp-0209.html

Human-chimp difference may be bigger

 

Planet of the Apes is just a movie, it's not real, Ape brains don't evolve into human brains-

planet-of-the-apes.jpg

 

 

 

 

More molecular evidence disproving evolution-

Intelligent Design the Future: Curious Molecular Signatures

Curious Molecular Signatures

Cornelius Hunter

 

It is now well known that the explosion of genome data in recent decades has made its own unique contribution to the ever-growing list of falsified evolutionary predictions. High conservation of functionally unconstrained sequences, nonsensical evolutionary trees, molecular clocks that do not run right, and phylogenies that do not resolve are all contributing to a reevaluation of tree thinking. From superoxide dismutase to glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase, incongruities are common. And novel designs in similar species, once assumed to have arisen only once and then passed on via common descent, now must be assumed to have evolved multiple times. So it is hardly surprising that a substantial molecular study, recently reported in Science magazine [310:1933], revealed yet more curious results.

 

The study, encompassing 50 genes in 17 different species, was designed to resolve metazoan evolutionary relationships. But despite the plethora of data, clear results were not produced. Both maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony methods failed to resolve a statistically significant picture of early evolutionary branching, though of course the broad outlines of relationships between very different groups was evident.

 

So what went wrong? The researchers explored several possible reasons, including the choice of taxa, particular data issues, and mutational saturation. But none of these seemed to pose a problem. So the study was left with only one conclusion: there must have been "a radiation compressed in time." In other words, the new species appeared in rapid fire sequence.

 

The problem is that even though a substantial quantity of molecular data was collected, there nonetheless is a small level of uncertainty. What if the species split off from each other close in time? If these cladogenetic events were tightly spaced, then the reconstruction would be left uncertain as to specific ordering of events.

 

The remedy is to use yet more data, but the authors note that this may not be feasible. While species have many thousands of genes, these evolutionary studies are limited to orthologs--genes that can be identified as having an evolutionary relationship across the taxa (yes, there is a bit of circularity in all this). That is not easy, especially when studying a large number of taxa, and unfortunately there may not be many more orthologs available. So this particular story ends with a rain check that, conveniently, may never be cashed in.

 

They had to evolve all at once, since the same thing probably did not evolve independently many times.

 

 

 

 

Scientific case against evolution

The Scientific Case Against Evolution

 

also, the gene barrier-

THE GENE BARRIER—In spite of efforts to see similarities in structures of various animals, the DNA barrier continues to defy the evolutionists. Even the genes themselves are totally different in mankind than in other animals, each of which has unique gene arrangements.

 

"It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find 'homologous' genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as hopeless." —*Sir Gavin De Beer, Homology, an Unsolved Problem, (1971).

 

*De Beer then asks a penetrating question:

 

"But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner,—what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same 'patterns,' in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked that question in 1938, and it has not yet been answered." —*Op. cit., p. 18.

 

Thus, according to 'De Beer, since it is the genes that control structure, function, and appearance —how can different animal types have similar appearance when they have different genes?

 

This point is extremely important!

 

The entire matter is a great mystery which evolutionists cannot fathom. How can there be similarities among life forms with different genes—different DNA codes? In desperation, *S.C. Harland, in Biological Reviews (11:8311936), suggests an answer from fantasyland: As an example, he discussed the eye. Harland says that, yes, it is true that genes are different for each creature, but for some mysterious reason many of their eyes are still very much alike! The solution is obvious, he explains: When each species evolved into new species, its genes changed but its eye structures did not change! It has eyes that are different than what its genes say they should be!

 

Harland is here theorizing that genes do not control the inheritance of characteristics! The science of genetics began when Gregor Menders 1866 research was discovered in 1900. By 1907, Columbia University scientists had established that the genes controlled heredity. Yet, after decades of fruit fly and other genetic experiments, Harland says it cannot be true—for if it were, it would destroy evolutionary theory! With every speculation they offer, evolutionists get themselves more deeply into trouble. Thus it has been for over a hundred years. But, fortunately, there are open-minded scientists who are willing to face the facts:

 

"The older text-books on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the ‘pentadactyl’ [five bone] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and the flipper of a whale, and this is held to indicate their common origin.

 

"Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene-complex, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down." —*Randall, quoted in *William Fix, The Bone Peddlers, p. 189.

 

 

PERFECT DIVERSITY— *Michael Denton's 1985 book, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis is a powerful attack on evolutionary theory. You will find the previously-mentioned studies comparing Cytochrome C, hemoglobin, etc., in the chapter, "A Biological Echo of Typology," in Denton's book. At one point he says this:

 

"There is not a trace at a molecular level of the traditional evolutionary series: fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. Incredibly, man is closer to lamprey [in his hemoglobin] than are fish!" —*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985).

 

Everything in nature is organized —but it is organized in the midst of intertwined diversity! One chemical test will fit one sequence, and another will fit another. Everywhere in nature is to be found carefully arranged DIVERSITY! Everything is different, but perfectly so. Denton concludes the chapter with the following scathing comment:

 

"Despite the fact that no convincing explanation of how random evolutionary processes could have resulted in such an ordered pattern of diversity, the [totally opposite] idea of uniform rates of evolution is presented in the literature as if it were an empirical discovery. The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth-century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists . . Yet in the face of this extraordinary discovery [of structures so totally diverse], the biological community seems content to offer explanations which are no more than apologetic tautologies." —*Ibid.

Edited by Immortal4life
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution of Apes into Humans in Africa? Yeah Right!

Nakedness

 

Over most of the body, hair is so fine and sparse as to reveal the skin under it. Environments known to give rise to naked mammals are tropical (in some larger-sized mammals such as elephants — which are themselves descended from aquatic ancestors — and some rhinoceros species), aquatic (whales, dolphins, walrus, dugongs, and manatees), semi-aquatic or littoral (hippopotamus, babirusas (Babyrousa celebensis)), and subterranean (naked mole rat).

 

Bipedalism

 

There exist very few bipedal mammals, and humans are the only ones which adopt a full-time, fully-upright posture with a vertical vertebral column. Gorillas, chimpanzees and bears are able to walk on two legs when they have a particular reason, but always revert to quadrupedalism as their basic means of locomotion. Some prosimians such as indris skip sideways on two legs when on the ground, because their adaptations to leaping through trees make ground-based quadrupedalism difficult. Kangaroos and hopping rodent species use a bipedal form of locomotion with bent knees and bent hips in rest. Even birds, with exceptions such as (semi-aquatic) penguins which have vertical vertebral columns, walk bipedally but with a horizontal vertebral column. Creatures such as squirrels and meerkats often adopt an upright posture when stationary, but do not walk or run bipedally. It is hard to see how bipedalism could have evolved on the savannah: the mass of the torso makes it inherently unstable and inefficient for locomotion.

 

Breathing

 

Most land mammals have no conscious control over their breathing. The voluntary control humans have over their respiratory system can be compared to that of (semi)aquatic mammals which inhale as much air as they need for a dive, then return to the surface for air. Morgan argued that this voluntary breathing capacity was one of the preadaptations to human voluntary speech.

 

Fat

 

Humans have ten times as many fat cells under the skin as would be expected in a non-aquatic animal the same size, and have many adipose cells even when considered slim. Mammals which hibernate have localised seasonal fat humps; but aquatic mammals retain fat (blubber) throughout the year. Human infants are especially fat compared to apes and most other fully terrestrial mammals. The human fatty layer (panniculus adiposus) is also attached to the skin of the central body parts as is the case with most medium- or larger-sized (semi)aquatic mammals, rather than to the muscle as in almost all land mammals. Humans also lack the layer of cutaneous muscle (panniculus carnosus) possessed by land mammals including non-human primates, which allows many land animals to twitch their skin, and which is not present in aquatic mammals.

 

Childbirth

 

Dramatic increase in cranium size is a prominent theme in human evolution, making childbirth difficult and dangerous. Water birthing is believed to facilitate childbirth and to reduce risks to mother and infant. Human infants are born covered in vernix caseosa, a waterproof coating also seen in newborn common seals, and continue to draw oxygen through the umbilical cord while underwater. Human infants naturally hold their breath and can swim from birth.

 

Nutrition

 

Human brain tissue requires comparatively large amounts of omega-3 fatty acids, which are uncommon in the land food chain but prevalent in the marine food chain. Indeed, most animals which move to plains life tend to develop smaller brains, while aquatic animals tend to evolve larger ones, quite possibly because of access to omega-3. Additionally, these omega-3 fatty acids promote (good) HDL cholesterol and cardiovascular health in humans, while saturated fats in pork, beef and other land-based meats do the opposite. Yet for land-based carnivores the opposite is true and they have special digestive enzymes to neutralize the deleterious effects of dietary cholesterol. It is noteworthy that many nutritionists find seafood to be the most healthful protein sources for humans whereas the meat of land-based mammals such as from beef or pork are the most harmful.

 

Tears and excessive sweating

 

Sweating and tears are prevalent in humans but not in other primates

 

and-

However, the Savannah Theory is riddled with conundrums, such as:

 

 

* Primates such as baboons and vervet monkeys live on the savannah - they have not become bipedal, nor have they lost hair

* The many thousands of years it took to evolve from being able to move quickly on four legs, to beings able to run on two legs, would have left the prototype humans extremely vulnerable to predators.

 

Mammals are not designed to walk vertically, because it is grossly inefficient. If the first apes attempted it, they would have been like year old babies: falling over all the time. Furthermore, the “missing link” would have lacked the locking mechanism of the knees that we have today. Imagine trying to stand with your knees bent for a few hours. Without a high priority reason to do so, the human predecessors would have simply given up. Evolution does not have an agenda. Animals cannot see into the future and aspire to being human, they can only respond to need. To gain a better view over the tall grass, a more obvious change, seeing as our ape relatives are good at jumping, would have been to jump higher.

 

Turns out that most African hominid fossils have been found in or near bodies of water. This is explained as “they were passing by, and stopped for a drink” or “heavy rains made the river overflow and they drowned”. The obvious explanation, that they lived in and beside the water (as most humans still do), is rarely considered.

 

A press release from the University of Toronto, August 1999, states:

 

The popular image of the earliest humans living on the African savanna must be wrong, [stephen] Cunnane says. His team has found that a specific fatty acid, DHA, necessary for human brain and eye development, is easily available in food near shore environments but not in the diet of savanna mammals. This suggests humans evolved near water before spreading inland, he says.

 

"We'd like to see early humans as hunters who took advantage of nature and grew a big brain in the process," he says. "But how could that hunting ability miraculously appear overnight? Well, it didn't. Instead, they evolved in a place where they didn't have to hunt."

 

Charles Darwin once wrote:

 

“The loss of hair is an inconvenience and probably an injury to man , for he is thus exposed to the scorching of the sun and to sudden chills, especially due to wet weather. No one supposes that the nakedness of the skin is any direct advantage to man; his body therefore cannot have divested of hair through natural selection."[2]

 

The Savannah Theory fails in this regard. These areas of Africa can cool to 11ºC at night, and it would not be an advantage for humans to sleep there even on a dry night. It is normal for terrestrial animals to have fur or thick hair. Humans still have the capillary muscles which enable our hair to stand on end. If our hair were longer it would then trap a layer of air close to the body, creating a thermal blanket of sorts. Feathers work the same way. Most animals have the ability to adjust their exterior in accordance with changing air temperature, whereas us poor humans have to resort to clothing. Hair or fur is also very useful for protection against injury, something very important in the wild.

 

Compared to all the other primates, humans definitely deserve the “fatty” tag. A gorilla or chimpanzee kept in a cage might put on a fraction of extra weight, as might an old horse that can’t run about as much as it use to. But the only land mammals capable of doubling or trebling their natural weight, to have rolls of fat hanging from arms, legs, hips and bellies, to be unable to walk without breaking into a sweat, are humans.

 

This fattiness is normal. If a woman’s body is underweight it chooses not to conceive. A typical 16-year-old girl should have 27% of her body weight in fatty tissue. If it were to drop below 22%, her menstruation cycle will cease. The reason that we need to stitch up serious flesh wounds is because the layer of fat just below our skin tries to ooze out. The edges of the cut become separated and are unable to rejoin and heal - other mammals don’t have this problem, their skin sits on top of muscle, not fat.

 

The concept of sweating as a cooling device is ridiculous. This system, which is unique to humans (other mammals that sweat do it less profusely than us, and use a different type of gland) is flawed. It is prone to activating at the wrong time (in humid weather), is too slow to start and stop, provides far more than the thin layer of moisture required for cooling, and wastes salt. We are the only mammal that expels salt when we sweat. Even when a human is nearing total dehydration it will continue sweating in hot weather and even die. Our sweating system is yet another disadvantage of being human.

 

Humans cry, the function of which that has long baffled evolutionary scientists. It is also for the purpose of expelling salt.Seabirds have special glands for removing salt from their body.

 

 

 

Not from Apes-

by Giuseppe Sermonti

 

Many schools proclaim as a matter without any doubt that man has derived from the African apes. Many textbooks in primary schools in my country, Italy, have on the cover page the illustration of an ape (usually a chimpanzee) gradually rising from its bent posture, to assume the elegant figure of man.

 

This is a falsehood which any honest scientist should protest against. It is not balanced teaching. That which science has never demonstrated (and therefore which no serious scientist in the world would ever assert) should be erased from any textbook and from our minds and remembered only as a joke in bad taste.

 

One should also teach people how many hoaxes have been plotted to support the theory of the simian (ape) origins of man.1 This began with Java ‘man’ in 1891 which was nothing but a giant ape-like skull-cap and a human leg-bone found 15 metres and one year apart.

 

It continued with the Piltdown skull in 1912, which was a combination of an ape’s lower jaw with a modern human skull-cap (probably planned and executed within the British Natural History museum), and the last was Peking man in 1923, whose controversial interpretation was solved with the ‘disappearance’ of 10 skeletons in 1925 and the ‘loss’ of the whole collection of fossils in transit to America in 1941.

 

Surely these events (among others) justify the sad statement of Professor W. R. Thompson, FRS, that ‘The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.’ Professor Thompson also said, ‘A long-enduring and regrettable effect of the success of the Origin was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculation’.

 

And even, I would add, to disproved hypotheses.

 

18489243v4_240x240_Front.jpg

 

 

 

 

Is There a Purpose in Nature? - Giuseppe Sermonti

SCIENCE WITH MEANING, SYMBOL, AND BEAUTY

Giuseppe Sermonti

 

When the concept of "purpose" was barred out of Science, this was not for a lack of evidence. It was after the decision to purify Science from terms having metaphysical or anthropomorphic implications. The decision was motivated by a need to create a world of "precision", amenable to rigorous control and experimentation, free from psychological biases and rejecting. As a result of such self-inflicted austerity, Science produced an uninhabitable universe, 'gelid in its solitude'1).

 

Has the operation of self-censure succeeded? The result was the abolishment from the Science's world of narratives, symbols, values, meanings and purposes. In turn great results were achieved in the theorization of Nature. But were the latter the genuine result of the refusal of traditions and magic? My view is that they were not. Both in the cognitive and in the applied field Science is in debt with ancient, if not ancestral, ways of thought, which still 'contaminate' its aseptic procedures. Fritjof Capra has skillfully shown the impact of ancient Eastern mystic in the development of modern physics. A young anthropologist from Boston, Misia Landau2), has convincingly maintained that all the theories on the descent of man (from Darwin to Leakey) were but versions of the universal hero tales in folklore and myth (as theorized by Vladimir Propp). She concluded that scientists have much to gain from an awareness that they are tellers of stories. I think to have conversely shown (1986-1994) that the classic fairy tales have a robust (although concealed) scientific structure (astronomic, mineralogical, botanical).

 

My auspice is that Science will consciously (and with the due caution) accept back within its boundaries meaning, symbol and beauty, that it will become again "approximate". Only in such context "purpose" would have its legitimacy recognized and could become a central theme in biology.

 

Once we have accepted "purpose" among the legitimate terms in the observation and description of Nature; once we have given it an agreed definition, we have to consider which use we should make of the concept in reading Nature. My feeling is that we should confine its use, to the "mysterious intentions of God", and to special situations.

 

The structuralist approach of the Osaka Group is, in a sense, opposed to a functionalist approach which understands anything as directed to a practical result, adopting what one can call an economicist view of Nature. We – at least I do – have a preference for order irrespective of function, for beauty without a purpose, for structure without an end in view. According to Adolph Portman, morphological differences largely exceed any functional necessity. In vertebrates the manifestations of form have the fundamental value of exhibiting a meaning, i.e. of rending manifest, in the language of the senses, the peculiar nature of the individual living beings and of testifying to such nature in their peculiar shapes. This is what Portman calls Darstellungswert (value of presentation). D’Arcy Thompson is in a similar position when he states: "Nature simply exhibits a reflew of the forms conteplated by geometry", or "The problems of form are, first of all, mathematical problems."

 

Let me tell a little story. A small bird, Cyanosylvia svecica (blue throat), delivers his most artistic song, the objectively most complex, when relaxed, in the depth of its bush, poetizing with himself (to use an expression of Lorenz). When the song becomes functional, when the bird fights for territory or tries to attract the female, all grace is lost and one hears only the monotonous repetition of the strongest strophes. This is a case of function, ‘purpose’, destroing form and compromising beauty.

 

An example of "purpose" in Nature

 

Activation by means of a substrate in a bacterium

 

viewer.png

 

 

 

also-

IS THERE A PURPOSE IN NATURE?

Giuseppe Sermonti

 

About halfway through the century which is now coming to a close, after decades of positivism and materialism, the vision of Nature circulating in scientific laboratories was somber and dispiriting, to put it mildly – and this irrespective of the discovery of DNA in the fifties. In 1948 Jean Rostand wrote in his Pensees d’un biologiste:

 

Man has the sole resource of forgetting the indifferent immensity of nature, which ignores and oppresses us... For the individual everything is tragically simple. There is nothing to comprehend, nothing to expect... For us there is nothing to understand and, beyond us, no one there to be understood.

 

Thirty years later – and in the meantime DNA had made its explosive entry on the scene – Jacques Monod (Le Hasard et la necessite) came out in a similar vein:

 

The blind and disordered processes which led to our origin looked toward nothing, were directed toward nothing, they were stumbling in the dark. Man’s appearance was without purpose and without meaning.

 

It was by way of revolt against this spirit of nihilism and desperation that the Center for Theoretical Study of Charles University and the Czech Academy of Sciences in Prague organized a Central European conference, sponsored by the Sasakawa Peace Foundation, with the theme: "Is There a Purpose in Nature?" The idea came from Fritjof Capra (author of The Tao of Physics), who conducted the proceedings.

 

That science should have abandoned the concept of purpose (Aristotle’s Final Cause) is certainly not because Nature has ceased to reveal itself as "intentional". It is not as if we were constrained to do so by some established vouched-for fact. Rather, it was a matter of lexical convention, a sort of gentleman’s agreement, whereby scientists denied themselves the use of anthropomorphic or metaphysical terms, (shades of the Vienna Circle...) in their discourse. Yet they continued to meet with purposes in Nature, but they made it their rule to reject them and dismiss them as illusions.

 

While firmly opposed to the idea of Chance as the sovereign principle governing Nature, the participants at the Prague conference were nevertheless hesitant to give a simple affirmative reply to the theme question. There is no doubt that people (and certain animals) "have intentions", but is "intention" characteristic of plants and stones and the rest of Nature? The concept of intention presupposes the formation of ideas and the attempt to real-ize them. But can a bacterium or a rock form a mental image? There are two ways to address this issue. Either we can say that purpose is a property of privileged species, thereby denying it to Nature as a whole, or we can attribute a mental, psychic...character to the world around us. Such a ‘mystical’ view had the support of some of the conference participants, among them Neubauer from the Czech Republic, who anticipated the return of science to its roots. Others, however, were left perplexed, among them Capra, who had come some way from the Tao of his famous likening of quantum physics to eastern mysticism. It is possible to admit that there is some purpose in Nature, but interest has shifted, however, to meaning. If Nature and its expressions have some kind of meaning, then this would stultify Rostand’s "there’s nothing to understand." Yet, to live is to understand – to understand oneself in the context of Nature. Meaning, Capra insists, is one’s experience of the context, the ‘web’ within which we have our being and which gives meaning to our actions and to every action taking place in the world. To act meaningfully is to act with a purpose, with an end in view. Admittedly this is a "feeble" and vague version of the purpose with which the discussion was concerned – not a purpose qua intention/destiny/will (which is the "strong" version), but purpose representing the sense of anything. Does life have a purpose? Possibly, it may not have a purpose as such, but it certainly does have a sense.

 

This sense comes to man through the fact that he is part of a whole, because he shares, along with other beings and other forms, a higher purpose, namely his existence, his being part of an order, of a process, of the laws of development. In all of this there is nothing anthropomorphic (as in the "strong" version). A term which was found favorable at the conference was anthropocosmic.

 

Out of the framework thus described, the Gaia system readily emerged. The Gaians see the Earth as an integrated organism, a whole striving to conserve itself and render itself habitable. In Gaia we are part of a more vast system, of a greater purpose – in other words, the Earth. In this way, ‘finalism’ converges with ‘ecology’. In his later works, Capra refers to "deep ecologism.” Is there a purpose in Nature? Maybe there isn’t, but there is ecology, don’t forget.

 

But is this an adequate answer? In a time when the ecologists have become a part of the political left, the proposed solution is too narrow. As Mae-Wan Ho remarked, besides the ecological, there are the scientific and aesthetic connections. Again, can one speak of a connection unless there is a feeling as well? Awareness of purpose in Nature is something that must get us involved, impassioned, and not have us stop short at the realization of a network, of a web that holds us together in a coordinated fashion.

 

That being so, a return to the mysticism of purpose is inevitable (even if Capra now prefers his Web to his Tao). Before any physical formulation of connections among beings, there must first be the appraisal of Franciscan poverty, the re-establishment of a more direct relationship with Nature – Nature being now in danger due to an invasive technology – as in the talking to the birds, to the Wolf of Gubbio, to sister water, to sister sun; addresses which are not anticipatory of ecosystems or of Gaia, but a mystical participation in the whole, where there is no incongruity with Francis’ Laudato si’ mi Signore.

 

What, then, is the answer to our question "Is there a purpose in Nature?" To be sure, an answer to this kind of question is not something that can come out of a conference in which each participant is expected to represent and maintain his position. There were several different answers and reference has been made to these above. Meanwhile, what is important is that the question was put forth in scientific circles, and the fact that it was put forth in the heart of Europe which is itself seeking a connection, a meaning, a purpose. When all is said and done, what else is purpose if not a self-questioning as to where one is going – what else, if not the posing of a question to oneself that expects a reply?

Edited by Immortal4life
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and-

CSC - How Should Schools Teach Evolution?

Some people don't want Charles Darwin's theory of evolution taught in public schools, while some others don't want anything taught that might contradict it. Both are wrong.

 

Texas law calls for textbooks to provide both "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories. A recent Zogby poll showed overwhelming support among Texans (75 percent) for that approach on teaching evolution. The support reached across all demographic groups.

 

At the national level, language connected with the No Child Left Behind Act said, "Where topics are taught that may generate controversy [such as biological evolution], the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist."

 

Darwinist die-hards have persuaded some in the media and on state school boards that the federal language wasn't really "official." So, in a letter released a few days ago, the chairs of the House and Senate Education committees that wrote the act forcefully repeated that state science standards should "not be used to censor debate" on Darwin's theory. States can defy Congress without losing federal aid, but there is no mistaking the official congressional view.

 

Darwinism is a theory in crisis.

 

More and more scientists question the Darwinian claim that all of life's complexity is the result of natural selection working on random mutations. Nearly 300 scientists, including 40 Texans, have signed a statement expressing such skepticism.

 

Other scientists, such as Dr. J.Y. Chen of China, one of the world's leading paleontologists, have argued that the fossil record from the "Cambrian explosion" of animal life "is basically in conflict with Darwinian evolution."

 

Biologist Giuseppe Sermonti, editor of the peer-reviewed European journal Revista Biologia, says dryly, "Darwinism is the politically correct of science." Political correctness, he points out, never has served the cause of academic freedom and true science.

 

Yet textbooks continue to ignore the growing scientific skepticism. Some textbooks even perpetuate long-discredited proofs for Darwin's theory, such as embryo drawings from the 19th century that purport to show that many animals – from fish to people – look virtually identical in the earliest stages of embryonic development. Although it has been known in scientific literature for years that the drawings are wildly inaccurate, three textbooks proposed for Texas still include them.

 

But Darwinists aren't about to admit any errors, even when textbooks disagree among themselves. Take the Cambrian explosion. If all of the textbooks are just fine, as the Darwinists assert, are we to believe the text that says it took place over a period of 20 million years or the one that says 160 million years or the ones that ignore the event altogether? Somebody is wrong. But Darwinists want the state school board to pretend otherwise.

 

Such errors and factual disagreements are rife in the high school biology text accounts of evolution, whether it is the story of the "peppered moth" or the study of finch beaks on the Galapagos Islands. In each case, experts not only have shown the Texas school board the errors but also have backed them with copious examples of peer-reviewed science literature.

 

Instead of answering the charges of scientific errors, the defenders of Darwinism are trying to change the subject to ... religion.

 

Their tactic is to label any scientific critic a "religious rightist" or "creationist," even though creationism teaches the literal biblical account of life's origin, while none of the scientists drawing the Darwinists' ire shares that position.

 

Many are indeed Christians of various kinds, but others aren't even religious. But in all of those cases, so what? Unless a scientist's work is corrupted by his personal faith or an anti-religious animus, it shouldn't matter to the integrity of his science.

 

Darwin's theory certainly does have implications for religion, philosophy and sociology. That is why it excites such passions. Let historians and philosophers explore those topics to their hearts' content. But keep the topic of religion and the philosophy of anti-religion out of high school science classes and textbooks.

 

Congress, more and more scientists and most Texans agree: Students should know all about Darwin's theory. Just make sure that includes the growing scientific dispute of its key "proofs.

 

 

Evolution — No longer inspiring the confidence it once did

by William Dembski on October 15th, 2006

Wednesday, October 11th was an historic day in the life of the European Parliament.

 

Polish member of the European Parliament, Maciej Giertych, retired head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Science, and father of Polish Deputy Prime Minister, Roman Giertych, introduced a public seminar on the General Theory of Evolution to fellow MEP’s.

 

Professor Giertych questioned the value of teaching a continually falsified hypothesis - macroevolution - to students throughout Europe, as well as pointing out its lack of usefulness in regard to scientific endeavour.

 

Professor Giertych introduced the subject by relating how his children had returned home from school having been taught about the theory of evolution. They were told that the proof of macroevolution - the common ancestry of biological life - was to be found in the science of genetics. This was news to Professor Giertych who had spent his life working at the highest level of genetic research. He revealed to the meeting that such proof does not exist in genetics, only disproof.

 

This was reinforced by the speech of Professor Emeritus Joseph Mastropaolo who had travelled from the USA to participate in the Brussels hearing. He explained that the biological sciences offer no empirical proof of macroevolution, just insurmountable problems. The theory of evolution consists merely of interpretational evidences which by their very nature could be interpreted in many different ways. He told the audience that the theory, after more than 150 years, still lacked any empirical proof.

 

Dr. Hans Zillmer, a German Palaeontologist and member of the New York Academy of Sciences, told the meeting that the fossil record holds no proof for evolution theory either. Instead of showing gradual change from one species to another, as is often claimed in the classroom, it actually reveals the stasis and stability of life forms.

 

Finally, Dr. Guy Berthault spoke to the audience about the results of his empirical research programmes concerning the deposition of sediments. Contrary to the established idea that the geologic column was formed slowly over millions of years, horizontal layer by layer, he revealed that his ongoing research proves empirically that the whole column could have been laid down in a matter of months. His research, which has been published in journals of the National Academy of Sciences in France, Russia and China, shows that continuous deposition of water borne sediments sort themselves mechanically and a simple change in current velocity cause strata to build upon each other whilst still progressing in the direction of flow.

 

In opposition to the existing notion of sediment deposition that is generally taught, Dr. Berthault revealed that his empirical experimental results clearly show that parts of undisturbed lower strata are actually younger than parts of higher strata laid down in a continuous flow.

 

This means that fossils can not be dated by the strata that they are found in, nor the rocks dated by the type of fossils found in them and makes nonsense of the geologic column as it is currently taught.

 

Amongst those helping to organise the historic seminar were Dr. Dominique Tassot, Director of Centre d’Etude et de Prospectives sur la Science (C.E.P). C.E.P. is an organisation consisting of 700 French speaking scientists, intellectuals and representatives of other professions, all of whom oppose evolutionary theory on scientific grounds.

 

Video Clip- interviews, molecular biologists and geneticists explaining why the theory of evolution is impossible

http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2098198/i/biochem.mov

 

youtube format-

 

DNA was known for thousands of years-

~-_ Planet Art Network _-~

genes.gif

 

The modern DNA diagrams of today correspond to the anciet pre-natal and pre-heaven I Ching construct. Pre-natal energy is the energy inherited from your parents, whereas the energy of air, water, food etc. is classified as post-natal energy. 5000 years ago the ancients wrote that the pre-natal energy at the microcosmic level inside the body, was constructed in the formation we now know to be DNA. They wrote that what it actually looked like from that level was that inside the human body at the microcosmic level, was like the universe outside the earth and that the human body was a small universe.

 

DNA and pre-natal/pre-heaven qi are the same thing or closely connected-

The I Ching and the Genetic Code

I Ching Genetic Code HyperDiamond Physics

ehichgen.gif

 

 

also-

http://www.tomshinsky.com/page801.html

 

and-

http://myweb.usf.edu/~pkho/yijing/dnatst.htm

TforUxx.jpg

Edited by Immortal4life
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is simple. Humans are the result of both natural evolution and genetic engineering ("creationism") by alien "gods."

 

Essentially, aliens took Homo erectus and spliced in a few hundred of their genes or so.. Thus, creating Homo sapiens and artificially "accelerating" evolution by millions of years.

dna1.jpg

We were basically created as a "slave race" to mine gold for our overlords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly why are you here and what are you trying to prove? The way your posts are framed, leaves me no doubt you are a fundamentalist!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is simple. Humans are the result of both natural evolution and genetic engineering ("creationism") by alien "gods."

 

Essentially, aliens took Homo erectus and spliced in a few hundred of their genes or so.. Thus, creating Homo sapiens and artificially "accelerating" evolution by millions of years.

 

We were basically created as a "slave race" to mine gold for our overlords.

 

I like the ancient alien theories about mankind's origins, however I also believe there are other ways to interpret the data presented on that site....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly why are you here and what are you trying to prove? The way your posts are framed, leaves me no doubt you are a fundamentalist!

 

His fundamentalism was obvious the day he made his presence known here. Now he's simply being honest with his intentions. It's remarkable how completely twisted this kid is, given his utter lack of respect for our forum, the principles of Taoism, and his intellectual dishonesty, i.e., citing the documents of religious institutions as legitimate sources for scientific evidence. But this is is what young biblical fundamentalists do; strike discord amongst those they perceive as lost. Why people in this board tolerate it, why some even come to his defense, strikes me as one of the most disappointing events since I've been coming here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly why are you here and what are you trying to prove? The way your posts are framed, leaves me no doubt you are a fundamentalist!

 

His fundamentalism was obvious the day he made his presence known here. Now he's simply being honest with his intentions.

 

:lol:

 

Lessons from Obi Wan....

 

"Your eyes can deceive you, don't trust them"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIMXsacUlDA

Edited by Immortal4life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will this help me while I'm out walking? Out in the world? :)

If I'm attacked by a dog, does it help me or the dog, to know who the dog's ancient ancestor is?

 

I'd like to know, because I'm about to go out walking right now. Seems like we think this is very important. Well? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will this help me while I'm out walking? Out in the world? :)

If I'm attacked by a dog, does it help me or the dog, to know who the dog's ancient ancestor is?

 

I'd like to know, because I'm about to go out walking right now. Seems like we think this is very important. Well? :D

 

I have to agree with adrius on this one. Daily decrease, ladies and gentlemen, not daily increase.

 

I do, however worry about the OP. How does this benefit you? Suppose that we are all wrong, would it make that much of a difference to your life? Would it make you happy? Give you a floaty feeling? On the other hand, if you didn't pay any mind to it, you could have done something else instead of research. Maybe have a cup of tea? Or a picnic, something nice outside? Maybe a little non-contention? Would a made me happy, I hate researching for assignments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not reading all that, can you do a one line summary?

 

No way can a species' brain triple in size in a few million years.

Edited by Immortal4life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, if you didn't pay any mind to it, you could have done something else instead of research. Maybe have a cup of tea? Or a picnic, something nice outside? Maybe a little non-contention? Would a made me happy, I hate researching for assignments.

 

Then it's your lucky day, since on this particular subject I did all the research and compiling for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I solved my Rubik's cube for you just now. Was it worth it for you? :D

Then I drank some water. Was it refreshing?

Some things you can't do for other people.

 

And I apologize for being a little facetious. I'm just in a funny mood. I mean no harm by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then it's your lucky day, since on this particular subject I did all the research and compiling for you.

 

Well thank you, that's very kind! I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth, but can I make a minor criticism? You've only presented one half of the research. Do you know what the counter arguments to your arguments are? It's something my professors harp on at me for not doing. They say "Research your opposite's standpoint. You may find something new, or a counter argument, to which your argument has no answer, but in most importantly you could find something that strengthens your argument. Either way, there are always both halves to an argument, and neither can be won with a closed mind."

 

But why win an argument when you can ignore it and not loose anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then it's your lucky day, since on this particular subject I did all the research and compiling for you.

 

It's not research. It's a punk foisting his rightwing religious bullshit in places he knows he isn't welcome.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've only presented one half of the research. Do you know what the counter arguments to your arguments are? It's something my professors harp on at me for not doing. They say "Research your opposite's standpoint. You may find something new, or a counter argument, to which your argument has no answer, but in most importantly you could find something that strengthens your argument.

 

This is true. I certainly could not have found all this out if I didn't look at both sides.

 

However, I disagree that I have any requirement to present sides if I disagree with them. This topic will bring all sorts of ideas and people with strong opinions on many sides anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some times, when we make concessions for others, things work a lot better for everyone involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not research. It's a punk foisting his rightwing religious bullshit in places he knows he isn't welcome.

 

You can only really speak for yourself. To you I may not be welcome here, that is all you can really say.

 

I find this to be quite a unique atmosphere, where there is a huge diversity of people with different ideas and beliefs. So I therefore am interested in hearing the opinions and reactions to a wide variety of subjects.

 

Here is more information and research for you....

 

New cellular evolution theory rejects Darwinian assumptions

http://news.bio-medicine.org/biology-news-2/New-cellular-evolution-theory-rejects-Darwinian-assumptions-7362-1/

Edited by Immortal4life
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When examining claims made by evolutionists, many people who are normally intelligent seem to throw common sense out the window. Why do they do this? Because scientists don't have a real explanation, and people like to pretend that they know how things happened. They just can't say "I don't know"-

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When examining claims made by evolutionists, many people who are normally intelligent seem to throw common sense out the window. Why do they do this? Because scientists don't have a real explanation, and people like to pretend that they know how things happened. They just can't say "I don't know"-

LOL! But that's what your embedded video is all about! The speaker keeps saying that the problem with evolution is that it doesn't match with "common sense". But that means nothing more than: "I don't get it". There's no deeper argument there.

 

Quantum physics doesn't match with common sense, either. Nor does immunology, astrophysics, material science, chemistry, computer science, you name it. If we stuck with "common sense", we would still believe that the earth is flat and in the center of the universe. So should we ignore all the experimental evidence that all these things work, and say instead: "since it's not immediately obvious to me, than it must not be so"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientific theories can become very elaborate and complex. However, their basic foundations must rest on knowledge that is understandable and observable.

 

It only makes sense for humans to invent theories, and to build them into complex ideas, if they are based on logically sound foundations first.

 

The problem comes about, when something is unexplainable with current data and knowledge. This is when the overly elaborate explanations come in. This is where many people throw out common sense, and will believe in things that are not proven, or go against basic knowledge.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites