Poster noshellswill

thread: Does anyone have a purely scientific objection to evolution?

bio-evolution lacks both a dynamic and an object

True, that bit of maths won't win many awards - I won't bet $$.05 on my terminology. Hack away if you feel the need. Let's remember what was/is the original issue. Can one always expect a trouble-free translation from verbal expression of a concept to some maths formulation ? I think a "reasonable mans" answer is ... NO.


back to

Granted, bio-evolution doesn't yet cut-it as real science, lacking a fundamental operator ( such as d/dx ) to express the verbally stated concept of "selection".

But almost as bad ... Wikipedia has a curt discussion summarizing the disagreement as to the OBJECT of selection.

"....... A unit of selection is a biological entity within the hierarchy of biological organisation (e.g. genes, cells, individuals, groups, species) that is subject to natural selection. For several decades there has been intense debate among evolutionary biologists about the extent to which evolution has been shaped by selective pressures acting at these different levels. This debate has been as much about what it means to be a unit of selection as it has about the relative importance of the units themselves, i.e., is it group or individual selection that has driven the evolution of altruism? When it is noted that altruism reduces the fitness of individuals, it is difficult to see how altruism has evolved within the context of Darwinian selection acting on individuals; ..."

Pretty bad, eh for a chatty group of 'naturalist' pretenders to the higher courts of understanding? The evolutionary material is presented with all the pretensions of a science ( sociologists do that too ), but underneath the "just-so" stories it's gutless - no robust dynamic and no agreed-upon object. For all we know, the actual "unit of selection" may be a single hydrogen bond in some obscure sugar. Nice work Charlie, Dawkins will be proud of you.


This page is from poster

replies to lenny Protein folding

Prof. Marko


noshell and wilkins

bio evo lacks a mechanism


{{{ On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:48:59 -0600, Mitchell Holman wrote:

> Let's open minds, textbooks to intelligent design theories

> December 15, 2007 > Indianapolis Star

> In our school systems today, science, with its dramatic and > continual advancement in knowledge, has to be one of the most > interesting as well as important subjects being taught.

> Strangely enough, it is here that we are teaching unchallenged, > the biggest lie in education -- the theory of evolution. Not > that the theory shouldn't be taught -- it should, simply because > it is believed to be true by so many scientists. But the latest > research with modern tools such as the electron microscope, > have ruled out any possibility of life on our planet occurring > by accident. Modern, competent scientists can show that the > unbelievable complexity of design of the human cell, for example, > demands the acknowledgement of a designer, or an intelligence far > higher than anything we can imagine.


. When you do science, or
teach students to do science the rules are simple.
       1) show me the data
       2) show me the integrating analytic concept
       3) work out the concepts' (quantitative) maths consequences
       4) compare #3 to #1. Search for "unexpecteds" in #3
       5) Repeat, refusing to accept any (popular) dogma you can't demonstrate
Why beat-up on immature efforts like bio-evolution? Better you use the
brains God gave you -- shut up and start calculating. 



On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:39:41 -0800, Bodega wrote: >> You would better spend your time reading science books. Even older >> stuff. Anything by Landau And Lifshitz does not waste your effort.

> I presume a word was inadvertently left out there. "Origin of Species" > is a science book.


That's right, I omitted no word. Bio-evol having NO dynamic, and a multitude of (contradictory) objects of that lacking dynamic is no real science. That's why it's called NATURAL HISTORY. Or as I like to humorously relate ...'... two nekked naturalists walking hand-in-hand through green meadows ...' . Nothing useful can be done with it. Of-course the interested "life-science" student may always study biochem, microbiology, anatomy or molecular biology. Lots of real science there and a possibility of generating fundamental insights into lifes' developmental process.

For any of those disciplines a student would be well advised to keep one L&L copy at his workbench/computer, another beside his bed. Darwin ... if you must, store him by-the-crapper with Freud and Marx for light distraction during necessary moments.....



I've opinioned before on the connection between "social" Dawinism and Nazi behavior. I referenced a 'first person account' by W. J. Bryant based on his experience as a US diplomat in Germany after WW1.

I don't remember any return comment, nor was my point so well-made that it demanded an answer --YMMV. A local expert in early 20-th century German history could enlighten us all. To my way of thinking, the issue is historical not conceptual or logical.

As for the movie EXPELLED ... yes I've read about it on this n.g. , but have read no further reviews nor have I seen it nor do I have any particular interest in the movie. AFAIK the movie has NO relevance to any scientific enterprise or concepts.

"Artistic merit" or lit-crit issues belong on another n.g.



On Sat, 24 May 2008 16:48:06 -0700, Frank J wrote: > Before you jump to a “no way,” read on.

> I don’t mean does anyone really think they have a better scientific > explanation. The 1980s origin and increasing prevalence of “don’t ask, > don’t tell” makes it clear that anti-evolutionists not only have no > better explanation, they have known it for decades.

> But conceivably there could be people with only a scientific objection > (i.e. the evidence is weak), and a genuine “I don’t know” with respect > to what might be a better explanation. Such a person would have no > stake in the design vs. “naturalism” debate, and probably have no > reason to doubt common descent or the 3-4 billion year history of > life. Their doubt might be only that “RM + NS” is the cause of changes > well above the species level. To be clear, I don’t think that there's > anyone like that at the DI, because even before the Wedge document was > leaked they didn’t try that hard to hide their real objection.

> Actually, it has been years since I thought that there were many such > people (scientists or otherwise) anywhere. That’s because such people > would want to be clear what they doubt and what they don’t doubt, and > not really want to be associated with either classic creationists or > IDers. Sure, a few people have stopped by TO and indicated that they > are not creationists or IDers, and still had problems with evolution, > but I was always suspicious of them because I usually had to coax it > out of them to see what they doubt, what they don’t, and what’s their > best guess for an alternate explanation.

> This year we have a better criterion than ever for identifying someone > with purely scientific objection, and that is that they would be at > least as appalled at “Expelled” as we are. Think about it. Nothing in > recent memory has ever been so clear at asserting that "the" objection > to evolution is philosophical and emotional, e.g. “I want it to be > wrong, therefore it is wrong!” “Expelled” ironically makes that case > even better than we do. People who really do think that they have a > purely scientific objection (if any exist) have had an uphill battle > to begin with, and now they have *anti-evolutionists* telling the > world that they are either wrong or don't exist. Who wouldn’t want to > set the record straight about that?

> So far I haven’t heard any objection to “Expelled” by anyone like > that, but if anyone has, I’d be curious to hear it.

Hummm ... anti-evolution eh? How about this ?

The proteome phase-space is too large ( ~2^400 ), too fragile ( E0~kt ) and too nucleation-dependent ( hydrophobic core ) to ever produce stable organisms, let-alone allow them to dissimulate.

That is -- in the spirit of the question -- proteomic life could neither start nor adapt without an < wildly far from randomly generated > "Arcturian Lifepod" motif.

  • NB* No originality here. All the above are well-known scientific *itches.

In response please do NOT explain. Demonstrate quantitative rebuttle or admit the lacuna. It's all on your head.

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.