Agnostic Yale computer scientist says he no longer believes in Darwinian evolution

Mutations are not necessarily fatal. There are highly conserved proteins across species (histone proteins involved in DNA replication, metabolic proteins) which, when mutated, often result in death in utero. These are so-called essential genes that all DNA containing organisms need for survival. However, there are many lesser conserved proteins which are species specific and result in phenotypical traits. I don't see how anyone with an understanding of molecular biology can say that evolution does not occur at least on a microlevel (within species). I agree making a jump to the macro level is more difficult to conceptualize, but is not out of the realm of possibility.

aseee wrote:

Mutations are not necessarily fatal. There are highly conserved proteins across species (histone proteins involved in DNA replication, metabolic proteins) which, when mutated, often result in death in utero. These are so-called essential genes that all DNA containing organisms need for survival. However, there are many lesser conserved proteins which are species specific and result in phenotypical traits. I don't see how anyone with an understanding of molecular biology can say that evolution does not occur at least on a microlevel (within species). I agree making a jump to the macro level is more difficult to conceptualize, but is not out of the realm of possibility.

Many micro changes = macro changes. A very solid logical argument.

I'm starting to lean more toward the Scientology view of existence. Our souls are immortal and we just go between forms of existence. Source: had some weird dreams about deceased relatives and my toddler daughters seem to know things they shouldn't about people they've never met.

I don't know science, but I find it hard to believe that somehow a single-cell organism decided to evolve into a skunk because it really wanted to shoot oil out of its anus. In what evolutionary circumstances would a mechanism like that be created? Did skunks with anal leakage have better survivability than those without?

Is it impossible to conceptualize there may have been multiple different primordial "spawning" species that came into existence simultaneously? Maybe this explains some of the biodiversity seen at earlier fossil levels and continuing to this day and age.

A1A Beachfront Ave. wrote:

alsal wrote:

atheist can not explain how something comes fro nothing they wont answer that question just try to ask a different question.

Why did God come from?

I think you meant “where,” not “why” but either way, “the God of the Bible is not affected by time, space, or matter. If He is affected by time, space, or matter, He [would not be] God” and would not be worthy of worship. Watch this short clip if it makes sense to you:

So lame ... wrote:

Oy Vey Dude wrote:

He is a former national fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and senior fellow in Jewish thought at the Shalem Center.

Now there's some credentials that would cause one to believe this guy over Darwin.

Hahaha .... so funny to watch shallow minded zealots when confronted with ideas different from their dogma.

Attack the person, attack the person’s credentials... how about instead you attack his conclusions with facts?

1+

One person out of hundreds of thousands of academics.

Does he have an alternative? Any hard evidence to discredit (Darwinism) Evolution? The majority of science considers Evolution a fact. This could change, but nobody has any *evidence* .

And FYI - a scientific theory (such as gravity):

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory?wprov=sfla1

kevin3681 wrote:

Everybody knows that the aliens infused their DNA with cavemen so a new intelligent homosapien was the result. The aliens have been experimenting on us for tens of thousands of years. Eventually they will come back and use us as slaves. Just watch "Ancient Aliens" on cable.

And who would you say created these intelligent aliens ??

I’m not particularly impressed by this article. While I accept that there may be issues to dispute in the defense of the theory of evolution, the author clearly made no effort to get a counterpoint from evolutionary scientists. This betrays a bias and advocacy of the opinion.

Quite the compliment; you’d have to be an agnostic not to believe in Darwin.

Good luck wrote:

Here’s the thing believe whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone else because of it.

Atheists (communists) have murdered more people than anyone in history (now that’s evil).

Catholics have killed other Christian sects and beliefs because they don’t adhere to their traditions.

Muslims well....

Just live and let live . You can believe were from monkeys or we were created by god. Just don’t hurt others because they don’t believe what you believe.

Really????

Who is responsible for the beheadings of Christians and killings of apostates (all because they believed differently without harming anyone) in most of Muslim countries then? And beating of wives and stoning...the list goes on...

Whaaat? wrote:

Good luck wrote:

Here’s the thing believe whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone else because of it.

Atheists (communists) have murdered more people than anyone in history (now that’s evil).

Catholics have killed other Christian sects and beliefs because they don’t adhere to their traditions.

Muslims well....

Just live and let live . You can believe were from monkeys or we were created by god. Just don’t hurt others because they don’t believe what you believe.

Really????

Who is responsible for the beheadings of Christians and killings of apostates (all because they believed differently without harming anyone) in most of Muslim countries then? And beating of wives and stoning...the list goes on...

I don’t understand the issue? I mentioned Muslims. I’ve been to a Muslim country where I was told if I said anything negative about Islam I could be thrown in jail.

That’s my point people just need to let people believe what they want without persecuting them. In America we’re luck to have a 1st Amendment that protects that. Unfortunately many people around the world do not have that freedom.

I am no expert, but i thought there were jumps in macro organization which happened in too short of a time frame to be explained by mutation rates

Whaaat? wrote:

Good luck wrote:

Here’s the thing believe whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone else because of it.

Atheists (communists) have murdered more people than anyone in history (now that’s evil).

Catholics have killed other Christian sects and beliefs because they don’t adhere to their traditions.

Muslims well....

Just live and let live . You can believe were from monkeys or we were created by god. Just don’t hurt others because they don’t believe what you believe.

Really????

Who is responsible for the beheadings of Christians and killings of apostates (all because they believed differently without harming anyone) in most of Muslim countries then? And beating of wives and stoning...the list goes on...

Muslims follow a religion that’s invented by a sex addict 7th century Arabian (Muhammad) who called himself a prophet, and who owned and sold black slaves, raped the female captives in front of their husbands, made his adopted son’s wife his own after lust, and sexually abused a 9 year old Aisha marrying her at that age on top of his 10+ other wives (but said his men followers are only allowed to marry up to 4 wives).....killed so many Jews and Christians and ordered to kill too....AND died of a food poison a Jewish slave/maid gave him after he had her family killed.

Read the Hadiths, Islamic most trusted sources, for the facts. Every word of Quran came out of this Arabian “prophet” first, claiming “Angel Jibril” told him from “Allah” (but it’s really Satan disguised as Allah). He never lived a prophetic life. In fact, no one in history fits the description of false prophets more than “Prophet” Muhammad does!

If you want to differentiate the real prophet of Islam vs the westernized “Prophet” Muhammad, just check clip out including the evidences provided within the video:

aseee wrote:

Mutations are not necessarily fatal. There are highly conserved proteins across species (histone proteins involved in DNA replication, metabolic proteins) which, when mutated, often result in death in utero. These are so-called essential genes that all DNA containing organisms need for survival. However, there are many lesser conserved proteins which are species specific and result in phenotypical traits. I don't see how anyone with an understanding of molecular biology can say that evolution does not occur at least on a microlevel (within species). I agree making a jump to the macro level is more difficult to conceptualize, but is not out of the realm of possibility.

Just FYI, no one says there is not micro-evolution. Creationist, Intelligent Design, Darwin skeptics, Darwin proponents, nobody is debating micro-evolution.

Also, you said lesser conserved proteins which are species specific. Did you mean genus or family specific? If the proteins are species specific, then they are called novel proteins, or orphan genes, and they show no connection to other lifeforms in a common ancestry phylogeny.

If you meant genus or family specific, that doesn't necessarily imply common ancestry, it can also just be a design feature. All cars and motorcycles have engines. All cars have windshields. Only some motorcycles have a type of windshield. Does this mean that motorcycle with windjams are more closely related to cars?

I only bring up the example of cars and motorcycles to demonstrate that placing objects into categories based on common features does not necessarily prove closer ancestry among those object that share more features. It can be completely based on the design choices of the designer. Even though lifeforms perpetuate their existence through ancestral generation, the common or disparate features between life forms does not necessarily imply common ancestry.

In macro evolutionary theory, the assumption of common ancestry is first made, and then the lifeforms are categorized accordingly. The categorization itself does not prove common ancestry. It is an assumption used to analyze the data. This assumption is at play whether you are look at visible phenotypic features, or you are talking about proteins common to all living cells, or only common to cells within a subset of lifeforms.

Common ancestry is assumed, and never proven in Darwinian evolution.

no one says that wrote:

Common ancestry is assumed, and never proven in Darwinian evolution.

I am genuinely curious. You made some rather sweeping claims about what evolutionary theory is, and what it assumes. How exactly do you know this? Ae you a biologist? Do you have training in biology? Have you read books or papers by evolutionary theorists? Or are you basing your claims on books/vidoes by critics of evolutionary theory.

Either way, I'm interested to hear where you get your knowledge about evolutionary theory.

PS I hope I'm wrong, but I'm betting you won't respond.

ChildOfGod wrote:

A1A Beachfront Ave. wrote:

Why did God come from?

I think you meant “where,” not “why” but either way, “the God of the Bible is not affected by time, space, or matter. If He is affected by time, space, or matter, He [would not be] God” and would not be worthy of worship. Watch this short clip if it makes sense to you:

https://youtu.be/w6AHcv19NIc

That made no sense. You don't get to make up explanations.

God came from the heads of the folks who made up that concept and then presented it to dumb folks as a fact.

Thetans wrote:

I don't know science, but I find it hard to believe that somehow a single-cell organism decided to evolve into a skunk because it really wanted to shoot oil out of its anus. In what evolutionary circumstances would a mechanism like that be created? Did skunks with anal leakage have better survivability than those without?

Believe it. And, yes.

What's surprising is that no one has yet mentioned (forgive me if someone has) that Gelernter was a victim of the Unabomber in 1993. Here's but one of myriad accounts of the incident.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1995-04-27-9504270253-story.html

Bill Kristol has an interesting conversation with him here:

https://conversationswithbillkristol.org/video/david-gelernter/