How many times have you heard that,
“Evolution has been proven as much as gravity“
Whenever you hear that, the first step is to ask the Darwinists: “What definition of ‘evolution’ are you referring to? Micro or Macro?”
In 99.9% of cases, they will answer something like this, “Macro evolution is merely and extension of micro evolution.” Darwinists erroneously believe that one can gratuitously extrapolate micro evolution, which is small changes like say, variation of size of color etc. in some given species, into macro evolution which is major change that crosses taxonomic Family boundaries upward.
In case you’re not familiar with taxonomic classification it goes basically like the following diagram:
We know that some evolution takes place with the Family and below. But there is not a grain of evidence that it ever takes place above the Family level. Though, there may be some overlap into the Order level. Nothing above this has ever been observed and there is no evidence that either occurs and much evidence that not only does it not occur but that it cannot occur at all. Some might say, “The fossil record!”.
The fossil record itself refutes gradualist Darwinian style evolution. See Stephen Meyer’s, “Darwin’s Doubt”.
Humans have been breeding living things for millennia, trying to artificially select for this or that trait in some Family like dogs or cats, horses, roses etc. In spite of many efforts to interbreed species from different taxonomic Families, none have ever succeeded except to bring about creatures that cannot reproduce or are severely handicapped.
The point is that you cannot extrapolate micro evolution into macro evolution. Not without proof that the extrapolation is valid. Is it? No. The basic reason is that the genome contains safety mechanisms, error detection and correction mechanisms that impede such “extravagances” if you will.
Now, every staunch creationist knows that evolution occurs within and below the Taxonomic Family level. No problem. Variation and adaptation occur all the time, and are indeed observable.
But there is not a single grain of evidence – let alone proof – that it occurs above that level; and vast evidence that it does not and cannot.
Here I will quote one of atheist Darwinists’ major players. Or ex-Darwinist I suppose he should be called now, though he was still an evolutionist.
In 2008, William B. Provine, Cornell University historian of science and professor of evolutionary biology, stated that “every assertion of the evolutionary synthesis below is false“:
1. Natural selection was the primary mechanism at every level of the evolutionary process. Natural selection caused genetic adaptation . . . .
4. Evolution of phenotypic characters such as eyes and ears, etc, was a good guide to protein evolution: or, protein evolution was expected to mimic phenotypic evolution.
5. Protein evolution was a good guide to DNA sequence evolution. Even Lewontin and Hubby thought, at first, that understanding protein evolution was the key to understanding DNA evolution.
6. Recombination was far more important than mutation in evolution.
7. Macroevolution was a simple extension of microevolution.
8. Definition of “species” was clear[–]the biological species concept of Dobzhansky and Mayr.
9. Speciation was understood in principle.
10. Evolution is a process of sharing common ancestors back to the origin of life, or in other words, evolution produces a tree of life.
11. Inheritance of acquired characters was impossible in biological organisms.
12. Random genetic drift was a clear concept and invoked constantly whenever population sizes were small, including fossil organisms.
13. The evolutionary synthesis was actually a synthesis.
14. Molecular biology has stolen from paleontology all ability to construct phylogenies. — William Provine, Random Drift and the Evolutionary Synthesis, History of Science Society HSS Abstracts.
In that single paragraph, Provine destroyed almost the whole neo Darwinian theory. And he is an adamant atheist.
It gets better, or worse if you’re a Darwinist:
A paper in the journal Biological Theory in 2011 stated,
“Darwinism in its current scientific incarnation has pretty much reached the end of its rope.” — David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber, “The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis,” Biological Theory, Vol. 6: 89-102 (December, 2011).
The authors try to bolster the Darwinian theory – I suspect to keep their jobs! – in the article and it shows that they’re covering their butts by giving Darwin the obligatory hit tip. Still, that claim is true. And even better still:
In 2009, Computational Biologist Eugene Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information stated in “Trends in Genetics” that there are major problems in core neo-Darwinian tenets, such as the “traditional concept of the tree of life” and the view that “natural selection is the main driving force of evolution.”
“the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair” and “all major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution.” Koonin concludes, “not to mince words, the modern synthesis is gone.” — Eugene V. Koonin, “The Origin at 150: Is a New Evolutionary Synthesis in Sight?,” Trends in Genetics, Vol. 25: 473 (2009) (internal citations omitted).
Koonin is, Senior Investigator National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Koonin, in the article, slaughters the modern synthesis, yet indicates that some new theory of evolution needs to be proposed, thus revealing his sticking with evolution overall while throwing out neo Darwinism. Wishful thinking.
The so-called Altenberg 16 said pretty much the same things. The famous meeting at Konrad Lorenz Institute in Altenberg, Austria in July 2008, where 16 scientists discussed expanding evolutionary thinking beyond outdated hypotheses.
If all these people say neo Darwinism (the modern synthesis) has failed, why is that people like Dawkins, Coyne, et al. are still loudly proclaiming that it is “proved as gravity” when nothing could be further from the truth?
Either some are being deviously dishonest or they are self-deceived. I’ll opt for deviously dishonest since the hypocrisy is easy enough to see everywhere. I’m not going to give you proof of his hypocrisy here, but the facts speak for themselves concerning the Darwinist record of telling the truth.
Some may wish to make reference to the old and useless, “scientific consensus” argument.
No thank you. Science has nothing to do with consensus. If its consensus it isn’t science and if science then consensus has NOTHING to do with it.
The evidence against neo Darwinian evolution has literally gone through the roof in the past decade alone, with the advent genome sequencing through high tech advancements.
Indeed, we now have incontrovertible PROOF of intelligent design in DNA. Recently discovered in DNA is that ZERO and the DECIMAL place are encoded in it and used computationally in the genome.
How to explain this? Under neo Darwinian terms, you don’t. You must explain it away; something Darwinists have always been professionals at.
To reiterate some of that previous article: There is only one single possible source for such mathematical units represented in DNA and that is necessarily intelligence – or “artificiality” as the discoverer called it stating moreover that,
“Chemical evolution, no matter how long it took, could not possibly have stumbled on the arithmetical language and initialized the decimalization of the genetic code. Physics and chemistry can neither make such abstractions nor fit the genetic code out with them. ”
Being non-material abstractions, all the zero, decimal syntax and unique summations can display an artificial nature of the genetic code. They refute traditional ideas about the stochastic origin of the genetic code.
… There is no plausible chemical logic to couple directly the triplets and the amino acids. In other words, the principles of chemistry where not the sought essence of the genetic code
…The zero is the supreme abstraction of arithmetic. Its use by any alphabet, including the genetic code, can be an indicator of artificiality.
All that means that neo Darwinism is utterly wrong. Nature knows nothing of ZEROs or Decimal places – they do not exist in nature. There goes the ballgame for Darwinian evolution. Curiously, what shCherbak discovered is exactly what both IDists and creationists have been saying all along.
Intelligence underlies and permeates the whole genome and genetic code.
Symbolic codes, no matter the physical medium by which they are stored to represent information, require intelligent origin. That’s what Code is, an intelligently organized and defined suite of symbols used to represent something other than themselves, to represent information.
The information in DNA is also algorithmic – ie prescriptive, instructions. This CANNOT arise by any mindless process.
Atheists and Darwinists have been denying (there it is again denial) this fact of life for decades. Yet now they are backed into a corner and the whole foolish fairy tale of neo Darwinian evolution is finished, or “gone” as Koonin aptly put it..
It will take many years to undo both its deeply ensconced, religiously held and legally protected “authority” and popularity and the damage it has done to science by retarding its advance.
More recently a second genetic code has been discovered embedded in the first. Do you have any idea what that implies?
Imagine writing computer code in the C++ programming language, and knowing that it can be compiled using two different language compilers, producing two completely different programs.
Imagine speaking in English and everything you say is also perfectly legit grammar of a completely different language all at once! That’s pretty close to what this discovery means. Think of the difficulty involved in creating a coded information system that is in fact two coded information systems in one. Try, for example, creating a language wherein saying, “Hello how are you?” in one means, “Darwinism sucks big eggs” in the other. Go ahead, think and try it; it’s humanly possible but only with great intellectual effort. Such things do not and cannot just “evolve”.
Neo Darwinism is “gone”. How long will it take before the religious establishment of secular humanism, that controls the whole public education system and most of the government and so much more in the West and in Europe, crumbles with it?
My guess is many years; painful, conflicted and possible violent years as the Darwinian propaganda and brainwashing juggernaut slowly grinds to a rebellious halt and dies. Darwinism is currently being upheld by artificial means. Like Bernie, in the movie Weeken at Bernies, the subject is dead, by being held up, propped up and moved around as though still alive.
This is closer to what it should look like; without the professional Hollywood makeup: