Monday, May 25, 2015

Darwin’s Predictions: A New Website Surveys Evolution’s Main Predictions

Looking Under the Hood

Ever wonder what the scientific evidence says about evolutionary theory? Have doubts about evolutionist’s claim that the data unequivocally support evolution, making if a fact beyond all reasonable doubt? Well have a look for yourself at the new DarwinsPredictions site and see how the objective science compares with evolution’s predictions.

38 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi,
      I just looked at the first assumption ; DNA code is not unique.

      You go on to say that since the DNA code seems "uniquely" optimized it can be considered special and unique, then falsifiying the initial assumption.

      First, I'd like to clarify the use of the word "unique" in the segment written by Mr Hunter. In his first paragraph unique would take the meaning "one of a kind". Since the DNA code is considered to have evolved, then yes, it is not unique, because preceded by its former iteration (and the other codes like the mitonchondrial one). In the second paragraph, the meaning of "unique" would be more like "remarkable" or "outstanding". This is true, the genetic code is really remarkable, no doubt about it. But it's not something that science cares about. The awesomeness of something can't be measured objectively. So let's talk about the first meaning : is the DNA code one of a kind, alone in this universe, unique ?

      The DNA code is not unique. You have different kind of code in different species : "The CUG codon is decoded in vivo as serine and not leucine in Candida albicans." in Nucleic Acids Res 1995 by Santos and Tuite. You also have the mitochondrial code. So the DNA code in human is only one of the code that transmit genetic information in the living world.

      There is 22 other "false expectations" listed by Mr Hunter. Was it bad luck that the first one was easy to debuke or is it the same for all other items ?

      Edit: formatting and wording

      Delete
    2. Calamity:

      Thanks for the comment. This is a good example of the problem evolutionists have with science. Even such an obvious failed prediction as this one is denied by evolutionists.

      Delete
    3. Calamity, "the first one was easy to debuke." (I presume you mean debunk.)

      I don't know, Calamity, but every time I hear the term "debunk", I feel like I am confronted by amateur "genius".

      "the mitochondrial code" Isn't that mitochondrial DNA? It is a separate strand of DNA from the chromosomes, but isn't it the same code?

      The DNA code is not unique. You have different kind of code in different species : "The CUG codon is decoded in vivo as serine and not leucine in Candida albicans."

      Um, isn't this the same DNA code, with one small variation? Oh, how on earth can such a variation ever occur in a naturalistic model? One day the CUG codon got interpreted differently in, like, a bazillion simultaneous places. This created a viable organism? Within naturalistic evolutionary theory, not likely -- AT ALL!

      Debunk debunked.

      Delete
    4. You guys are in denial. There is exemple in nature of different codes used by organism to transmit genetic information.
      So by definition of what unique is, the genetic code is not unique, plain and simple.

      So what Mr Hunter described as a false expectation is clearly not.

      You may think that people studying evolution have a problem withg science, but you guys have a problem with plain logic.

      For bFast:
      First you should look at what mitochondrial DNA is instead of posting weird stuff.
      And you clearly don't understand what the theory of evolution is if you think a "bazillion simultaneous" changes need to take place simultaneously. That's ID that need a designer to change simultaneously the tiny pieces of all organism on earth every fraction of time to accommodate what we see now.

      Scotland just banned creationism from classroom today. I guess Mr Hunter needs to be more convincing.

      Delete
    5. Calamity:

      So what Mr Hunter described as a false expectation is clearly not.

      You may think that people studying evolution have a problem withg science, but you guys have a problem with plain logic.


      The denial is incredible. Here we have a Nobel Laureate and the top textbooks in the world, all making evolutionary statements that are flat out wrong. This isn't even close. If this were creationism evolutionists would easily agree with the failure, even with much less the evidence. The level of denial is amazing.

      Delete
    6. CXlXmity, "And you cleXrly don't understXnd whXt the theory of evolution is if you think X "bXzillion simultXneous" chXnges need to tXke plXce simultXneously."

      Um, it is the fXct thXt I do understXnd evolutionXry theory thXt cXuses me to see X problem here. EvolutionXry theory cannot withstXnd X bXzillion simultXneous chXnges -- thXt's the problem.

      You sXid, ""The CUG codon is decoded in vivo Xs serine Xnd not leucine in CXndidX XlbicXns."

      Lets think this out X bit. You hXve Xn orgXnism thXt uses the stXndXrd conversion tXble to trXnslate DNA to RNA. Every time the conversion tXble encounters X CUG sequence, it produces X leucine. One dXy the trXnslXtion tXble is chXnged -- every time X CUG is encountered, it now produces X serine insteXd.

      Seeing Xs there Xre Xbout X bXzillion CUGs in the orgXnism's DNA, on thXt dXy the orgXnism chXnged the meXning of Xll of the CUGs from leucine to serine. Oops, X bXzillion chXnges! EvolutionXry theory cXn't mXnXge X bXzillion chXnges Xll Xt once, so boom!

      To illustrXte the point, I hXve converted every Xscii vXlue 120 (lower case a) to render as X insteXd. Note how one chXnge in the trXnslXtion system produces X bXzillion chXnges in the product being trXnslXted.

      ps: I simulXted this by hXnd, so I mXy hXve missed some, but you should get the point. No, not likely. You never seem to get the point.

      Delete
    7. Sorry, above "trXnslate DNA to RNA" should read "trXnslXte DNA to amino acids".

      Delete
    8. bFast: Note how one chXnge in the trXnslXtion system produces X bXzillion chXnges in the product being trXnslXted.

      Yet eXsily reXdXable.

      Delete
    9. Mr Hunter answer is comical. You are answering my "you guys are in denial" by a childish "your denial is incredible".

      You are saying that Nobel laureate and textbooks are making false statements. In my opinion this it not true, as i explained in my previous post.

      Maybe you could adress the point of the uniqueness of DNA more directly.

      For bFast :
      It did not get what you wrote.

      Delete
    10. Zachriel, "Yet eXsily reXdXable."
      Calamity, "It did not get what you wrote."

      Delete
    11. bFast,

      Your claim was that "Evolutionary theory cannot withstand a bazillion simultaneous changes. You provided an example using the English language, which is much more fragile than DNA sequences, and yet your changes still left a sequence whose meaning was easily read.

      Delete
    12. It is readable to someone who is versed in English and has an error correcting system in his mind. I don't know if a computer, or someone who is not well versed in English could read it as well. An organism might need an error correcting system to read a changed DNA code.

      Delete
    13. natschuster: It is readable to someone who is versed in English and has an error correcting system in his mind.

      For someone who is versed in English, it's not so much error correction as simply noting the minimum necessary to read the section. People don't usually read every letter, but interpolate as they go.

      Delete
    14. But you need to be well versed in English, that is, have background knowledge of all the relevant vocabulary. Would replacing a single letter in a computer program work?

      Delete
    15. Calamity:

      Mr Hunter answer is comical. You are answering my "you guys are in denial" by a childish "your denial is incredible".

      You are saying that Nobel laureate and textbooks are making false statements. In my opinion this it not true, as i explained in my previous post.


      So when I explain that you seem to be in denial when you refuse to accept established science, then I am guilty of being childish, but when you say I am in denial for no reason, that is a cogent observation.

      Delete
  2. Loooong overdue. I have seen an earlier version of yours, but this is certainly better. I always had trouble finding it.

    It gives those who are skeptical a powerful tool in dealing with evolutionary delusions.

    BTW, what's with the period before Darwin? It's not a url. It is kind of confusing. A title is usually underlined, or preceded with a number/letter combo?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dr. Hunter,
    Very nice website. When I talk with people who need to be shocked out of their hypnotic belief in naturalistic evolution, I will refer them here.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I just read the piece on Nature does not make leaps.
    First the assumption is based on something Darwin said 120 years ago.

    Since then, the theory of evolution has changed. So falsifying this hypothesis is actually really easy. Actually most of the points detailed by Mr Hunter are just strawmen, miss-represented hypothesis easy to attack.

    Mr Hunter goes on providing excellent examples of undeniable proof of evolution, leaps or not leaps.
    Reading this post teach you a lot about evolution, which is not so great if bFast wanted to share it with believer in naturalistic evolution. Mr Hunter is an evolutionist in disguise !

    ReplyDelete
  5. Let nme see if I understand the argument, The point is that all organisms use the same code. A designer didn't have to stick to one code. Therefore it must be evolution. But evolution did not have to evolve one code either. There must have been a lot of codes leading up to this one. Where are they? And there is no reason why evolution had to stop when it got this one. So evolution is no better an explanation. Unless, evolution had to stop because this is the best possible code. But that answers for design as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can't make predictions of what can or canno't do a designer (that is also why ID is not considered as science cf Tammy Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District ruling in 2005)

      Evolution tells us that the DNA code must be shared by a lot of organisms since all share a common ancestor but there is not reason that changes could not occur.

      Delete
    2. Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution. Evolutionary and genetic algorithms demonstrate the power of intelligent design evolution.

      Common design tells us that the genetic code, or at least it's chemical embodiment, must be shared by nearly all organisms, if not all. Unguided evolution cannot account for the genetic code nor DNA. So that would be an issue for you to solve.

      Delete
  6. Calamity
    Can you explain scientifically how the circularity cited in Dr. Hunter's piece, (Saturday, May 9, 2015
    nFGFR1, A Protein That Regulates the Regulators) could have been brought about by evolution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like the other proteins. I suggest you go to
      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php which is really well made.

      Then this nFGFR1 is not a special protein. Lots of protein interact wich each other, DNA and RNA through complex networks.
      The paradigm one gene/one protein/one function is long gone now. It's all very complicated.

      You could deem all biological processes complicated enough and then wonder how possibly it could have evolved.

      But the proof of evolution don't come from those complicated example. Those complicated examples are the things to solve now.

      Delete
    2. Unguided evolution cannot explain anything beyond one gene, one protein. And it has to be given that to start with.

      Delete
  7. Calamity
    You explained nothing: "It's all very complicated"?. Saying it's not a special protein does nothing to prove that it could have been constructed by chance, let alone DNA and RNA. and saying it's all very complicated tends to disprove the theory of randomness in evolution. How can randomness create complexity?
    -From Dr. Hunter's blog: "Recall that the exons are combined by a massive protein machine. So in other words, a massive protein machine is required to construct proteins. The protein machine must have been constructed first, in order for proteins to be constructed.
    The same circularity applies to the translating of the transcript into a protein via the DNA code. In that translation process, a great many proteins are required. Proteins are required to construct proteins. There is no scientific evidence that evolution can construct a circular process such as this."
    It's impossible for me to accept that unguided chance in Evolution could have constructed that. Impossible, unless I can believe "just so stories".
    Sorry but I watch to many Forensic shows. LOL You'll need real science to convince me, not just stories.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you find it impossible to understand unguided evolution, feel free to believe in other (non scientific) alternative, like ID.

      Unfortunately you won't find much of what you call real science about ID. It's mostly just so story.

      With evolution at least you have real textbooks and plenty of peer reviewed articles. You could find explanation about protein evolution in one of those.

      Delete
    2. I still see no science on your part nor in "real textbooks" in refuting the blog's point.

      Delete
  8. Read what Professor James M. Tour says, who is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world.Here’s what he said when a student in the audience asked him about evolution:

    … I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.

    I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you. Is that OK, for me to say, “I don’t understand this”? Is that all right? I know that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don’t understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.

    Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “Yes,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.
    If you understand evolution, I am fine with that. I’m not going to try to change you – not at all. In fact, I wish I had the understanding that you have. Now, I understand microevolution, I really do. We do this all the time in the lab. I understand this. But when you have speciation changes, when you have organs changing, when you have to have concerted lines of evolution, all happening in the same place and time – not just one line – concerted lines, all at the same place, all in the same environment … this is very hard to fathom.

    But about seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I don’t understand. And I said, “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something – I will ask you to clarify. But you can’t wave by and say, “This enzyme does that.” You’ve got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me. Nobody has come forward.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Okay, I took a look at the Darwin’s Predictions page. Just a few comments….
    “Embryology and Common Decent”
    I would highly recommend that you do a better literature search before making bold claims about development pathways. Especially when your source is 45 years old. When de Beer described the lens development in Rana (actually Rana and Pelophylax) species he was apparently unaware of any research in the area since Spemann (1901). Especially research in 1956 that showed that Spemann’s results were incorrect for a number of reasons, the most important being that larval rearing temperature was the critical difference, not the presence or absence of the optic cup (Swindell et. al, 2008).
    About pepperpot formation in Solanum. First of all, I cannot at all fathom why you refer to anther formation as “embryonic development”. I hope you understand that plant embryos do not produce flower structures. Regardless, I fail to see why this is some crushing blow to common decent. The difference between the two structures is the method by which the anthers are held together. Tomatoes use hairs to mechanically hold the anthers in the pepperpot formation, while bittersweets use a sticky glue. Two solutions to the same ‘problem’ that are non-homologous. This doesn’t mean that the anthers (or any other flower part) are considered non-homologous. Both species rely on bees using “buzz-pollination” and the pepperpot anther arrangement optimizes this. A suitable analogy would be the wings of birds and bats. Both are derived from a homologous structure (the forearm) but differ in the specific ‘solution’ to volancy.
    “The Pentadactyl Pattern and Common Decent”
    Unlike the previous section in which it is possible you simply misunderstood the literature, this section is bafflingly and undoubtedly deliberately a distortion. For example, was the “certainty” that must be reversed according to Gould? That pentadactyly is homologous in tetrapods or that pentadactyly was the basal condition? The answer is only a sentence or two past the part you quote.
    About those skinks you discuss – where do Siler and Brown (2011) make the claim that pentadactyly evolved “independently”? You should know that legless skinks develop pentadactyl limb buds as embryos, but these do not develop and are reabsorbed. When limbs re-evolve they are not originating from scratch, the factors inhibiting expression are turned off such that the limbs follow the ancestral pattern of development. The surprise was that toolkit to form a limb (and specifically a pentadactyl limb) remained intact despite non-expression. My best guess on the why of this is that the cascade involved in limb formation also regulates other functions and so therefore is maintained despite inhibition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aaron:

      Thank you for your comments.


      I fail to see why this is some crushing blow to common decent.

      The site makes no such claim. For the intent and scope of the site, as well as a FAQ section, please see the Introduction.


      this section is bafflingly and undoubtedly deliberately a distortion

      There is no deliberate distortion on the site.


      For example, was the “certainty” that must be reversed according to Gould? That pentadactyly is homologous in tetrapods or that pentadactyly was the basal condition? The answer is only a sentence or two past the part you quote.

      As above, you seem to be projecting a theme that is not there. The Gould quote illustrates that the prediction that the tetrapod pentadactyl pattern should fall into a common descent pattern is false. The rest of the essay is a good illustration of that fact.


      where do Siler and Brown (2011) make the claim that pentadactyly evolved “independently”?

      Evolutionists have several candidate mechanisms to explain the observed digit structure pattern. Independent evolution is one of them, but that is beside the point. How the pattern is explained, and how many mechanisms are employed, doesn’t change the fact that the prediction was falsified. In fact, a great variety of patterns can be explained.



      You should know that legless skinks develop pentadactyl limb buds as embryos, but these do not develop and are reabsorbed. When limbs re-evolve they are not originating from scratch …

      Again, yes, different mechanisms are available to evolutionists. That doesn’t change the fact that the prediction was falsified. We added (Brown, 2012) and edited the text to help avoid this confusion in the future.

      Good comments on embryology, that one is under construction. Thank you again.

      Delete
  10. Cornelius Hunter: And the common descent pattern formed by this structure is often claimed as strong evidence for evolution.

    It does show a common descent pattern. All extant forms are descended from a pentadactyl ancestor.

    ReplyDelete
  11. obat aborsi is one of the most common medical procedures done where one woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy. Misoprostol is the most potent medication abortion for abortions safely and naturally that has been proven to release the fetus is only 1 day

    ReplyDelete
  12. Tindakan menggugurkan kandungan adalah keputusan yang sangat sulit , jika anda tidak ada pilihan untuk berdiskusi dengan pelayanan kesehatan atau dokter , Kami menasehatkan untuk membicarakannya dengan teman baik atau anggota keluarga . Apabila anda perempuan yang masih muda , bicarakanlah tentang situs obat aborsi

    ReplyDelete
  13. Promiscuity as a result of today's youth can not be separated from the name intercourse before marriage and it is huge. and this led to an unwanted pregnancy, by taking medication abortion they make a solution to overcome the problem. jual obat aborsi

    ReplyDelete
  14. I like this post,And I guess that they having fun to read this post,they shall take a good site to make a information,thanks for sharing it to me.
    obat aborsi

    ReplyDelete
  15. If you want to find out about how an abortion, we find a lot on google about how to abort article contains natural or drug . obat aborsi

    ReplyDelete