One has to ask why?
-------------
Irony?
| July 13, 2012 | Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design |
more...
Showing posts with label Lynn Margulis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lynn Margulis. Show all posts
Saturday, July 14, 2012
From the uncommondescent blog. I found this to be very interesting and I have been watching this happen for a while now. We are witnessing a revolution in biology. Information has been coming faster now and this blog is attempting to keep visitors aware. The old paradigm is crumbling....yet TE's are trying to save it....
One has to ask why?
-------------
While I was shaving this morning I was thinking about the
materialists who are beginning to question the evolutionary mechanisms
proposed by the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis (e.g., Lynn Margulis and James
Shapiro). All of a sudden a great irony struck me. No doubt many of my
readers have already picked up on this, but I can be slow on the uptake
and it was kind of a stunner to me. The irony is this: Even among
materialists Neo-Darwinian Evolution is beginning to crumble under the
cumulative weight of the many absurdities it requires its adherents to
accept.
more...
One has to ask why?
-------------
more...
Friday, September 2, 2011
Interview WIth Lynn Margulis - natural selection
Natural selection is a conservative process not a creative one.
Discover Interview: Lynn Margulis Says She's Not Controversial, She's Right It's the neo-Darwinists, population geneticists, AIDS researchers, and English-speaking biologists as a whole who have it all wrong.
And you don’t believe natural selection is the answer?
This is the problem I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs you keep selecting the hens that are laying the bigger eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly eggs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create.
and…
I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence. …
There is no gradualism in the fossil record… ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ was invented to describe the discontinuity. …
The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism. It’s just that they’ve got nothing to offer but intelligent design or ‘God did it.’ They have no alternatives that are scientific.
The evolutionary biologists believe the evolutionary pattern is a tree. It’s not. The evolutionary pattern is a web…
Discover Interview: Lynn Margulis Says She's Not Controversial, She's Right It's the neo-Darwinists, population geneticists, AIDS researchers, and English-speaking biologists as a whole who have it all wrong.
And you don’t believe natural selection is the answer?
This is the problem I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs you keep selecting the hens that are laying the bigger eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly eggs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create.
and…
I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence. …
There is no gradualism in the fossil record… ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ was invented to describe the discontinuity. …
The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism. It’s just that they’ve got nothing to offer but intelligent design or ‘God did it.’ They have no alternatives that are scientific.
The evolutionary biologists believe the evolutionary pattern is a tree. It’s not. The evolutionary pattern is a web…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)