Materialists

not according to the argument you presented: "self organization" by definition needs neither intelligence nor design to come about.

 

not true. scientific literature has numerous well-documented occurences of speciation at a "macro" level.

 

there was a time science had no explanation for how small pox virus could travel trans-oceanically, but that didn't stop several million indigineous americans from getting sick and dying.

there is a very big difference between what we don't know and what we can't know.

 

Now now damir... stop shattering the boys well formed illusions ok?

Shoe loves using an appeal to ignorance. He doesn't WANT
to do his homework and discover there *IS* evidence
for macro evolution.

He has perfected his ostrich technique


peace

axeman

 

Is there any reason to consider this alternative to Darwinism? Yes. Firstly, the Darwinian account of evolutionary progress has no model in an analogous medium such as computers. True, computer models can be randomly changed, and they can evolve to solve pre-set problems. But no computer program has demonstrated the ability to compose new programs that add sophisticated new features to itself — as appears to have happened in the evolution of life on Earth. If a computer model ever did, it would establish in principle that evolutionary progress by the Darwinian method is possible.
The best way to establish that evolutionary progress by the Darwinian method is possible would be by closed-system biology experiments. Since 1990, closed experiments with bacteria have been under way (7). Pedigreed strains of bacteria have been cloned and placed into varying environments to observe how they respond. At regular intervals, samples are pulled and genes from the samples are sequenced. Genetic mutation and recombination, and phenotypic variation are observed to occur. When the diet is changed from glucose to maltose, for example, the bacteria adapt to the new diet. But to metabolize a new sugar, the bacteria adapt by calling up genes that they already possess. There is no evidence, even after 25,000 generations, that a gene with a wholly new function has been composed in this experiment. To check this understanding, in August 2000, I contacted one of the principal investigators, Richard Lenski. Nothing he told me changes this opinion.

Finally, the Darwinian account of evolutionary progress has failed to obtain full support from the educated public. Even after 140 years of active advocacy, the theory elicits misgivings among a large share of intelligent adults. Organized opponents of the theory, “creationists,” are able to influence public educational policy against it in many instances. No other modern theory of similar significance has experienced a similar fate. The reason for this anomaly could be that the theory is actually flawed.

In summary, there is no model for the Darwinian account of evolutionary progress in an analogous medium like computers, the process has not been demonstrated in close-system biological experiments, and it is considered implausible by many, perhaps even most, educated adults.

Until the emergence of panspermia, science believed that our whole planet was a biologically closed system. If so, the closed-system experiment is already well under way with proven, planet-wide results in favor of Darwinism. But the mere possibility of panspermia changes the situation entirely. One can no longer safely claim that the planet is a biologically closed system. Therefore, any instance of biological progress on Earth may result from the expression of genes acquired from elsewhere. In other words, the whole planet is subject to genetic contamination from space. If science ought to be sceptical of claims that have weak support, it should now be sceptical of the Darwinian account of evolutionary progress.
Other widely accepted theories have been overthrown after careful scrutiny. An example is the “luminiferous aether,” believed to be the medium in which light waves propagate. Following the Michelson-Morely experiment it was abandoned, and the theory of relativity emerged.

With Darwinism, the problem up to now has been that there was no scientific alternative. Both Darwinians and creationists said that there were only two choices — and only one of them is scientific. But now we know that biological input into our planet’s biosphere from elsewhere is possible. This possibility makes strong panspermia a scientific alternative to Darwinism.
Brig Klyce
____________________________________________

 

also not true. hasn't been true for quite a long time. there is even evolvable hardware now.

 

where do you guys get this stuff from? this is either very sloppy research or a deliberate attempt to mislead. bacteria don't create new genes, their mechanism for change is the dropping of existing genes and incorporating genes from their surroundings. they would never be able to evolve as quickly as they do if they were limited to slowly changing their structure.

 

Where do you dig up such garbage Doubter???

I only agree with two points:

1) Is there any reason to consider this alternative to Darwinism? Yes

Science should always continue to look for alternatives. Duh.


2) But now we know that biological input into our planet’s biosphere from elsewhere is possible. This possibility makes strong panspermia a scientific alternative to Darwinism.


Only problem is, there is no "strong panspermia". The current
level of evidence is non-existent, and is therefore nothing
but one of many unsupported hypothesis.





Now for the rest of the article:


1)The computer model analogy is flawed as hell.
There already EXIST computer programs that are capable
of evolving on the fly. The author focuses on ONE example
which does not, and then implies its not possible.
Take the blinders off. This is blatantly false.

2) The bacteria model is yet another example of arguing from IGNORANCE.
You DO know that viruses HAVE been observed to mutate right??
Microevolution is a scientific FACT as much as gravity is.
Its not even debatable. This guy is clueless for attempting
to focus on bacteria as if no one will notice that microevolution
is already well established.

3) Finally, the Darwinian account of evolutionary progress has failed to obtain full support from the educated public.....
The reason for this anomaly could be that the theory is actually flawed.

This is nothing more than the fallacy of appealing to popular opinion
and further more a non-sequitor.
Even worse, it appeals to the lay man instead of expert authority.
The publics opinion has NO bearing on scientific truth.
Did it ever occur to this dude that the public rejects evolution NOT
on reasonable grounds but because of their religious dogma?
Lets face it...the "average public" is dumb as a stick when it
comes to science.
Leave the science to the highly educated scientists ok?
Oh and by the way.... they accept evolution to an incredibly high degree.


4) "This possibility makes strong panspermia a scientific alternative to Darwinism"

LMAO.... here the author shows us exactly how absolutely CLUELESS
he is. What a moronic thing to say!

Even if we PROVE panspermia was how life got started on life,
IT STILL DOES NOT DISPROVE Darwinism!
Did it ever occur to this guy that DARWINISM/EVOLUTION is how the
alien "seed" developed in the first place??? LOL!

Panspermia is NO WAY explains how life came about PERIOD.
It just begs the SAME question. How did life start?
Whether its on earth or elsewhere.

Therefore, panspermia CANT be an alternative to Darwinism.
It doesnt even try to explain the origin of life! DUH!


peace

axeman

 

It should be OBVIOUS by now to you damir, that the
creationist/cult-christians love to appeal to pure ignorance.


I am just stunned that people make such completely
ridiculous statements without even doing the tiniest
bit of research.

That article was the worst piece of false garbage ive
read in a long time.

Full of blatant untruths that are EASY to check.

peace

axeman

 

I now understand why the late Carl Sagan stressed that
we must do a better job of teaching science in our schools.

People in general are so completely clueless about science
and have never been taught how to analyze and think properly.

Its a sad state of affairs.


peace

axeman