Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity

You are not connected. Please login or register

Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design » Intelligent Design » Darwin devolves M.Behe - a review

Darwin devolves M.Behe - a review

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Darwin devolves M.Behe - a review Empty Darwin devolves M.Behe - a review Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:23 am


Darwin devolves M.Behe - a review

The earliest fossil of a polar bear is over one hundred thousand years old. The species is estimated to have branched off from the brown bear hundreds of thousands of years before that.

My comment: ( MC): How does Behe know this?

Behe: Yet a pivotal question has lingered over the past century and a half: How exactly did that happen? What was going on within the bodies of the ancestors of the modern polar bear that allowed them to survive more effectively in an extreme climate? What was the genetic variation upon which natural selection was acting?

MC: Why does Behe presuppose natural selection? Why not another mechanism of adaptation? 

Behe: The ideas that life has changed over time and that organisms are related by common descent (both of which were controversial in Darwin’s time) are supported by evidence from geology, paleontology, and comparative anatomy. Those parts of his theory have withstood the test of time very well.

MC: Why does M.Behe neglect and not consider the evidence of his own field, molecular biology, which falsifies common ancestry?  Namely the fact that the membrane of prokaryotes and archaea diverge, and so the DNA replication machinery between both classes ?  

Koonin, the logic of chance, page 331:

The reconstructed gene repertoire of LUCA also has gaping holes. The two most shocking ones are

(i) the absence of the key components of the DNA replication machinery, namely the polymerases that are responsible for the initiation (primases) and elongation of DNA replication and for gap-filling after primer removal, and the principal DNA helicases (Leipe, et al., 1999), and
(ii) the absence of most enzymes of lipid biosynthesis. These essential proteins fail to make it into the reconstructed gene repertoire of LUCA because the respective processes in bacteria, on one hand, and archaea, on the other hand, are catalyzed by different, unrelated enzymes and, in the case of membrane phospholipids, yield chemically distinct membranes.

Bacterial membranes are made of fatty acids bound to the phosphate group while archaeal membranes are made of isoprenes bonded to phosphate in a different way. This suggests that their membranes ( supposedly ) evolved independently.

The tree of life, common descent, common ancestry, a failed hypothesis

It's like the world upside down, when an evolutionary biologist disproves common ancestry, and a proponent of intelligent design proposes it, and throws Genesis out of the window !!

Behe: A few years ago the world’s leading science journal, Nature, published a remarkable exchange between two groups of biologists, one defending Darwinian theory and the other arguing that it should be extensively remodeled or replaced. The anti-Darwin side pointed to new results and new phenomena discovered in older disciplines that have been around since the nineteenth century, such as developmental biology (the study of how a single cell develops into a fully formed adult organism), as well as to brand-new fields that weren’t even imagined until the past few decades, such as epigenetics (the study of how factors other than DNA may control heredity).10 They contended that the new data necessitates a major rethink of evolutionary theory. The pro-Darwin side pooh-poohed the arguments, claiming that the novel results will fit just fine under the umbrella of Darwin’s theory. It’s nice to have defenders, but when a significant number of practitioners in a field grumble that a well-known, thoroughly investigated, 150-year-old theory doesn’t fit the new data, then something’s seriously wrong.

My comment: Agreed. I have a topic on this:  The shift cannot be overestimated: Evolution by mutations, natural selection, shift and / or gene flow is replaced by: 
Preprogrammed instructional complex INFORMATION encoded in various languages and communication through signalling through various signalling networks  that act  on a structural level, which are pre-instructed to respond to environmental cues, development, and nutrition demands.  The shift is from the "no-God required" hypothesis, to the " an intelligent designer is necessary". This is a huge shift of paradigm, maybe the major one that ever will and can be. 

Where Do Complex Organisms Come From?

Behe: Darwinian evolution proceeds mainly by damaging or breaking genes, which, counterintuitively, sometimes helps survival.

MC: This is nothing new.

Genetic entropy

Comparative genomics shows that, under  certain ecological settings, sequence loss and cellular simplification are common modes of  evolution.

Cambrian/mutations/genetic entropy and more confirm creation and ID/debunk Darwinism Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum