Another scientist challenges Darwin’s theory
American Thinker,
by
John Dale Dunn
Original Article
Posted By: Deety,
11/4/2019 5:23:48 AM
Dr. Marcos Eberlin, a physical chemist who specializes in spectrometry and supervises a large lab in Brazil that has produced hundreds of doctoral level scientists, is former president of the International Mass Spectrometry Foundation, author of more than 1000 research papers, and has written a book that makes a strong case for another nail in the coffin of Darwin’s theory of evolution of species.
In the late 1960s when I went to medical school, the histologists (cellular level anatomists) had received a great new instrument, the electron microscope, that provided an order of magnitude improvement on studying and recording the microanatomy of living cells.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
jalo1951 11/4/2019 6:19:05 AM (No. 226517)
I don't have the answer to life but I always had trouble wrapping my brain around the THEORY that a slimy mass of cells crawled out of the ocean and poof evolved into every living thing on earth. How come there is no evolution to plant life? Some sprout pops out of the ground and turns into every plant found growing on earth. Agree that one day this will all be proven wrong.
30 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
MattMusson 11/4/2019 6:21:58 AM (No. 226519)
Darwin's theory does a good job of explaining adaptation which is just a haphazard version of selective breeding. It explains why we can breed tall horses, short horses, brown, black, silver and white horses. But, to explain the fossil record - we would have to be able to breed 6 legged horses or horses with wings. And, we can't do that.
30 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
frew 11/4/2019 6:47:04 AM (No. 226536)
What happened in the primordial soup will probably forever remain a mystery. Regardless of the difficulties posed by gaps in the fossil record and the improbabilities of certain steps in evolution, the theory of evolution will remain a very useful tool in organizing biological knowledge.
8 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
WhamDBambam 11/4/2019 6:51:32 AM (No. 226540)
You might like the late Tom Wolfe's "Kingdom of Speech." He's merciless on Darwin.
9 people like this.
Same sentiment for the "Big Bang" theory.
14 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
MOBeef4u 11/4/2019 7:27:25 AM (No. 226572)
Everyone who accepts much of the theory of evolution (yes, it doesn't explain everything, that's science) is not anti-religion. These are not mutually exclusive concepts. The Bible is not a science book and science is not concerned with matters of religious faith. For many scientist the more they learn about the universe the more religious they become.
32 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Casper27 11/4/2019 7:42:20 AM (No. 226588)
Darwinians and evolutionists cannot answer the question of 'granite'.
Do you like your beautifully inherently designed granite cabinet tops. Each one with a special design and under a microscope it is like it is a hand painted mural.
Here you go....Granite makes up 84 percent of the earths crust.
"The Earth's crust is an extremely thin layer of rock that makes up the outermost solid shell of our planet. In relative terms, it's thickness is like that of the skin of an apple."
How did it get here through all the heat and melting and maintain design?
It melts in 3.06 seconds and turns into gray blobs of gray ugly stone, like gravel.
All that heat and melting, all those millions of years and granite is made intantly, with design.
Read: Creations Tiny Mystery by Robert Gentry
11 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Rivetjoint 11/4/2019 7:45:03 AM (No. 226590)
I remember a speaker considering the difficulties associated with the Big Bang theory and likening it to blowing up an old-style (pre-digital age) printing shop and expecting the Encyclopedia Britannica to be the result.
18 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Casper27 11/4/2019 7:45:36 AM (No. 226593)
Granite melts in 3 minutes and .06 seconds.
1 person likes this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
bpl40 11/4/2019 7:49:06 AM (No. 226597)
It was Gandhi who said "Faith begins where intellect ends".
6 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
chillijilli 11/4/2019 8:34:39 AM (No. 226645)
I've never understood why evolutionists feel they need to stop the evolution of the climate.
19 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
pilot222 11/4/2019 8:36:16 AM (No. 226647)
For those who believe no explanation is needed, for those who don’t no explanation can be given. Faith is a gift freely given by God, but with free will you can take it or leave it.
15 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Quigley 11/4/2019 8:53:37 AM (No. 226667)
I don’t know why it’s called the “theory” of evolution. If it was a theory it would predict some things. It would explain some things, like how life began from lifeless atoms or molecules, like HOW a sea creature evolved to a land creature (details about how lungs developed, how the change from gill breathing to lung breathing was accomplished in detail). But it’s just a black box, worms go in, rabbits come out.
So it’s not even a theory. More like a thought in search of enough evidence to allow it to evolve into a theory.
The Chesterton quote above is completely unassailable in it’s removal of the thought from serious consideration.
8 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
gone2pot 11/4/2019 9:03:20 AM (No. 226681)
My faith in a designer is reasonable. I don't have enough faith to believe in random occurrences due to quantum mechanics over a mere 14 billion years of random activity to make a perfectly designed planet for life, let alone perfect digital reproduction with analog parts in bacteria and cells. If you want to believe it, that's fine. There is literally zero scientific evidence that random events violated the second law of thermodynamics AND the science of random mathematics and the science of probability mathematics in exactly the right order repeatedly in just 14 billion years to get to life with unimaginable complexity in its cell structures. Just using probability mathematics SCIENCE, it would take between 10 to the 64 to 10 to the 120 years to get to a goldy locks planet with a moon in exactly the right orbit and mass, then randomly generate digitally reproduced cells. SCIENCE provides evidence that the universe is no where near old enough. Hence, there are several pieces of evidence that suggest believing a designer created things is quite reasonable. I have faith that it is the case. If you do not, then be warm and be fed and let's debate it scientifically but please don't point your Flying Spaghetti Monster ad hominem at me. Why? Because if the quanta really can create an infinite number of universes per Dr Leonard Susskind and Steven Hawking, thereby rendering any anthropic universe a common thing, there is necessarily at least one of the infinite universes controlled by a Flying Spaghetti Monster you use to make fun of believers in God, and you better hope this ain't the one. It might be offended by your colander hats.
10 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Casper27 11/4/2019 9:19:28 AM (No. 226704)
Plus, I will take the intellect of Christ Jesus (Yeshua Ha-Mashiah) over Ghandi any day.
I like the intellect of Sadducian Rabbi Saul who became Paul and all his words on faith since he had the entire Torah memorized.
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the 'evidence' of things not seen'....
The intellect of man is base on myth, whereas faith is the evidence of truth and fact.
10 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
Franz 11/4/2019 9:21:19 AM (No. 226709)
Darwin was well aware of “mutation” which can produce variations, some of which are quite striking, in the same species. He also noted features (eyes, ears, etc.) common to multiple species indicating a linkage. He then theorized (guessed) that mutation or a process like mutation was creating a variation that resulted in a new species. This he called “evolution.” Both mutation and evolution occurred within organisms. For this to be true, evolution requires linking organisms.
Ever since Darwin published his theory, people have looked for the missing links. Two observations have been made. Since then, no missing links have been found and no new species have evolved.
An alternate explanation for different species is that they were created by an intelligence external to the species. Just as an architect creates buildings with common features (windows, doors, etc.), the linkage is not a physical one between buildings but in the intelligence that created them.
8 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
msts 11/4/2019 9:24:25 AM (No. 226714)
My kids believe in God. They don't believe in the Theory of Evolution because it doesn't provide enough explanation. In order to believe there is no God, and therefore, no plan, no guidance, we are left with coincidence. Its all just coincidence.
But even if it is coincidence, the Theory states evolution is the effect of some cause. So how come there haven't been any more? The answer is "its something over time, millions of years". Got it, but an example given was a moth that developed black color for the smog and fog from burning coal in London. That was a hundred year timeline. So how come I dont see any new species?
Last, without science the Book Of Genesis narrates the formation of the Earth. In exact order. Huh?!!
2 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
F16 guy 11/4/2019 9:25:23 AM (No. 226717)
What this all boils down to is a "god of the gaps" argument.
1. The Theory of Evolution tries to explain evolution
2. Some say that one theory is wrong
3. Instead of seeking out further truth, we give credit to a "god."
4. We stop looking for further proof.
Historically, every time gods of the gaps theory was enacted, it was proven false, and scientific theories prevailed.
What makes one think God is the answer now, explaining in poor detail how evolution exists?
https://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/essays/2005-11-the-perimeter-of-ignorance.php
One can accept god into their lives without giving credit to him every time we can't explain one of life's enigma's.
4 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
NotaBene 11/4/2019 9:36:57 AM (No. 226730)
Natural selection had a very long time to generate so many forms most beautiful. The creator started it with a Big Bang and it then evolved. Gene sequencing gives us now a detailed roadmap of how species evolved. No point in being Luddites.
3 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
frankdn 11/4/2019 9:54:43 AM (No. 226747)
You will never change my mind about this until you present to me an argument that *I* find convincing. What convinces you does not matter.
0 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
Bohallx 11/4/2019 10:09:33 AM (No. 226767)
When a star is born, at one of the earlier stages in its formation, it spews huge volumes of WATER out at it's poles.
That water is under immense pressure and assumes the molecular form of trillions of double-helix molecules.
From that point on it's just a question of replacing hydrogen and oxygen atoms with other stuff....
which does lead to considerations of self-assembly having a place ~ maybe the only place ~ in further discussions of what's up with the stars.
0 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
paral04 11/4/2019 10:21:34 AM (No. 226783)
The problem with the so called Darwin Theory is that it does not meet the scientific requirement for a theory. It is a notion at best.
3 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
davew 11/4/2019 11:01:37 AM (No. 226826)
Death is unnecessary in creationist theory but essential to natural selection. Many complex looking processes like planetary motion were attributed to intentional causes in the past until we understood the laws of physics better. The laws of natural selection follow the free energy principle described by Karl Friston and would have been beyond Darwin's comprehension.
1 person likes this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
kono 11/4/2019 11:12:37 AM (No. 226841)
Science and Religion are partners locked in a dance around mystery in mutual pursuit of truth and understanding, not antitheses straddling a single track on a collision course in some metaphysical game of "chicken". But 'science' has led us to claim there is no difference between man and woman, how can we expect it to discern the distinction and relationship between faith and reason?
As a side note, a phrase in #19 derailed the train of thought: Who on earth is or was "Sadducian Rabbi Saul who became Paul"? Certainly not Saint Paul, nee Saul of Tarsus, who quite unambiguously identified himself (and demonstrated himself) as having been a leading Pharisee, not a Sadducee.
4 people like this.
Reply 25 - Posted by:
Chicagoan 11/4/2019 11:14:24 AM (No. 226843)
Even Darwin doubted his own theory and some of his contemporaries couldn't hold with him.
Please read: Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design
Book by Stephen C. Meyer
3 people like this.
Reply 26 - Posted by:
BRDG 11/4/2019 11:22:10 AM (No. 226852)
Like evolution, gravity is also a theory.
They exist, but the exact explanation of how they work can not be 100% proven.
I.E. as more evidence came to light, Darwin's gradual theory of evolution was modified to pinpoint evolution. One mutation brings advantage, not disadvantage.
They are impossible to prove. So scientists gather evidence and attempt to refine OR disprove.
3 people like this.
Reply 27 - Posted by:
snakeoil 11/4/2019 11:23:55 AM (No. 226857)
Back when I was in high school if someone said they didn't believe in evolution they were classified as an ignorant hayseed hick who just fell off a turnip truck. So peer pressure resulted in many of us embracing evolution. Now that I've aged I realize that anything that happened before recorded history (around 5 k) is pure speculation. So believe whatever you want to believe. Your opinion is as good as anyone else. Stripped of all the details it comes down to are we here for a reason or is it just random chance. Which is the most believable? If life began randomly why don't we see it happening now?
2 people like this.
Reply 28 - Posted by:
Trapper 11/4/2019 11:57:58 AM (No. 226894)
Kicking out the final leg of the three legged stool of 19th Century crackpots (Marx, Darwin, Freud) that produced and supported 20th Century "modernism" and all its post- progeny and utterly ruined the 20th Century. The combined 20th Century casualty count of their follies is breath taking. Freud replaced by a prescription pad, Marx replaced by Jefferson, and Darwin replaced by real scientists. It's a good start.
6 people like this.
Reply 29 - Posted by:
Skeptical1 11/4/2019 12:01:09 PM (No. 226898)
I think we should cut Darwin some slack. He was trying to explain the fossil record, which was kind of a new discovery in his time. Not the origin of life, or the mechanisms of variation and inheritance. Really, natural selection seems like an obvious idea, given the state of knowledge at the time. But Darwin acknowledged that his theory needed defending.
The intense dogmatism seems to have come later, with neo-Darwinist thinkers like Dawkins, who elevated the role of chance (Darwin, after all, thought it was obvious that some acquired traits could be passed on) and claimed that their theory was complete.
When thinkers like Eberlin challenge the neo-Darwinists, many see it as a contest between religious and scientific thinking, so their emotions get worked up. Of course it is, in a way, since it suggests that science has a little more work to do. But, when you think about it, that should be a pleasurable discovery no matter what your belief system is.
1 person likes this.
Reply 30 - Posted by:
Trav 11/4/2019 1:24:33 PM (No. 226971)
All material changes have an immediate material cause, and that's the part of "intelligent design" that gets lost in the shuffle. I'm no scientist, but I've been involved with language throughout my very long life, and the closer one gets to the precise meanings within the language of the anti-evolutionists the more the concepts dissolve into pixels. And the scientists who challenge "Darwinism" never quite seem to be actual evolutionary biologists.
Religion has no place whatever in this discussion, and I wish there were a movement, "Conservatives Against Intelligent Design."
1 person likes this.
Marcos Eberlin continues the opposition to Complete Darwinism along with Michael Behe, David Berlinsky and Stephen Meyer. Darwinism is good for very limited changes in species, but not much more.
0 people like this.
Reply 32 - Posted by:
Casper27 11/4/2019 2:36:52 PM (No. 227022)
No. 35 Religion is not about faith. Faith is scientific. Scripture is intellect in action. When it moves it burns.
When God's word is read it imparts faith. You can accept it and believe it or reject it. It is up to you.
Jesus Christ (Yeshua Ha-Mashichai) at age 12 lectured the Sanhedrin in the Temple with Saul present and baffled them. It is not about religion it is about truth and facts, not myths. Remember these famous intellect words "You shall not surely die"...........................Now, get that living will ready.
It is a sure thing.
All these comments are very appreciated and respected as to their sincerity. Good folks. Good Americans.
5 people like this.
Reply 33 - Posted by:
little guy 11/4/2019 3:45:34 PM (No. 227070)
Just another proof that Almighty God ... the infinite Unmoved Mover ... in His infinite wisdom ... deliberately hid His tracks so well that He knew man would always be confused. However, He has given us enough signs to see His design while also giving us the choice to be confused.
Therefore, for those who believe, no further proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, well ... no proof will every satisfy them.
4 people like this.
Reply 34 - Posted by:
Rumblehog 11/4/2019 4:28:19 PM (No. 227098)
Evolution has also never explained an ugly caterpillar's metamorphism into the beautiful butterfly. The DNA changes completely, along many other things, which goes hand in hand with the fact that evolution attempts to explain "hardware" without explaining how the "software" got there.
The Bombardier Beetle can't be explained, since it can shoot a jet of caustic liquid at predators, blinding them, allowing escape and survival. It mixes two liquids from separate bladders in exact quantities in a mixing chamber which explodes when combined. Not only that, but it has synchronized metering valves that pulse hundreds of times a second, which allow it to remain in position and not be blown away by the force of big explosion. No way such complexity could evolve simultaneously, independently chemically or physically, and on its own.
Darwinism fears the lowly Honey Bee, which can build complex hexagonal hives, has a complex social structure, navigation and communication skills, and makes three substances to totally unique to them... Honey, Beeswax, and Saliva. Honey, because it NEVER spoils : Beeswax because it's the only organically produced totally hydrophobic material on earth (even epoxy absorbs water): and their Saliva because it's amazing anti-bacterial properties slathered on the chamber walls protect the larvae from disease.
What "random force" that caused all these things could be so marvelous? s/o
6 people like this.
Reply 35 - Posted by:
Bluefindad 11/4/2019 5:27:44 PM (No. 227148)
I'm a biologist turned programmer. Please, anyone who wants to understand the degree of complexity that comprises life - take a graduate level course in embryology. The programming required to transform the single, fertilized egg cell into differentiated tissues and form is astounding. Chesterton is absolutely right in his intuitive assessment of the reasoning power of evolutionists.
3 people like this.
Reply 36 - Posted by:
franq 11/4/2019 7:32:21 PM (No. 227233)
Those who reject Creationism do so by choice, not by evidence.
0 people like this.
Comments:
Evolution, as an explanation for the origin of life on earth, will accompany "global warming" into the dustbin of history.