Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Members Blogs
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Self Moderated Area
Tiger Blog
Origins Thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tiger" data-source="post: 94569" data-attributes="member: 353"><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://voxday.net/2024/05/04/the-vacuous-rhetoric-of-evolution/[/URL]</p><p></p><p>The Vacuous Rhetoric of Evolution</p><p></p><p>This is a quote from the 1966 Philadelphia symposium, but it is precisely the same sort of argument that any substantive critic of Neo-Darwinism keeps running into from the Neo-Darwinians:</p><p></p><p>Combinations of different genes occur such that every individual is a unique combination, and the selective assay of the value of each random mutation is performed simultaneously in this framework for thousands of mutations at a time. The acceptance of the neo-Darwinian concept of evolution appears to be eminently valid on this basis. However, a critical feature is the occurrence of mechanisms for genetic combination and recombination, and a major criticism of the neo-Darwinian concept which has been raised at this meeting is premised on the lack of such a mechanism in the initial steps of the evolution of a “sense” sequence of a polypeptide or polynucleotide from an initially “nonsense” sequence. It does not, however, seem an extreme extrapolation from the known facts of nucleic acid replication and transcription to envisage that combination and recombination are inherent features of polynucleotides, and the evolution of “sense” sequences then becomes a process of reasonable probability.</p><p>– Dr. Alex Fraser, Professor of Genetics, University of California Davis, California</p><p></p><p>Let’s break the argument down into its component parts:</p><p></p><p>1. There is no mechanism. This is readily admitted.</p><p></p><p>2. This lack of a mechanism renders the hypothesis impossible.</p><p></p><p>3. But it doesn’t strike the Neo-Darwinian true believer to be an extreme extrapolation to imagine what this nonexistent, never-observed mechanism could be if it existed, which it doesn’t.</p><p></p><p>4. And if we simply imagine that this nonexistent mechanism existed, then the proposed process that requires it in order to function becomes theoretically possible.</p><p></p><p>5. Therefore, the process works as imagined</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tiger, post: 94569, member: 353"] [URL unfurl="true"]https://voxday.net/2024/05/04/the-vacuous-rhetoric-of-evolution/[/URL] The Vacuous Rhetoric of Evolution This is a quote from the 1966 Philadelphia symposium, but it is precisely the same sort of argument that any substantive critic of Neo-Darwinism keeps running into from the Neo-Darwinians: Combinations of different genes occur such that every individual is a unique combination, and the selective assay of the value of each random mutation is performed simultaneously in this framework for thousands of mutations at a time. The acceptance of the neo-Darwinian concept of evolution appears to be eminently valid on this basis. However, a critical feature is the occurrence of mechanisms for genetic combination and recombination, and a major criticism of the neo-Darwinian concept which has been raised at this meeting is premised on the lack of such a mechanism in the initial steps of the evolution of a “sense” sequence of a polypeptide or polynucleotide from an initially “nonsense” sequence. It does not, however, seem an extreme extrapolation from the known facts of nucleic acid replication and transcription to envisage that combination and recombination are inherent features of polynucleotides, and the evolution of “sense” sequences then becomes a process of reasonable probability. – Dr. Alex Fraser, Professor of Genetics, University of California Davis, California Let’s break the argument down into its component parts: 1. There is no mechanism. This is readily admitted. 2. This lack of a mechanism renders the hypothesis impossible. 3. But it doesn’t strike the Neo-Darwinian true believer to be an extreme extrapolation to imagine what this nonexistent, never-observed mechanism could be if it existed, which it doesn’t. 4. And if we simply imagine that this nonexistent mechanism existed, then the proposed process that requires it in order to function becomes theoretically possible. 5. Therefore, the process works as imagined [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Verification
Does Doxxie know his real father.
Post reply
Latest Threads
How Dangerous is Israel?
Started by Anderson
Today at 4:04 AM
Replies: 1
Nationalist Politics
Charlie Kirk Shot Dead ~ RIP
Started by Anderson
Yesterday at 3:29 PM
Replies: 92
Nationalist Politics
J
Has anyone else kinda lost the will to live ?
Started by Jay Homer Simpson
Yesterday at 12:30 PM
Replies: 4
Public Chat and Announcements
The 2023 National Party Coup D'état or Split: My Understanding of it
Started by BelfastRatepayer
Saturday at 12:59 PM
Replies: 28
Nationalist Politics
RTE and Virgin - 2 Cheeks of the same.....
Started by Anderson
Friday at 3:46 AM
Replies: 11
Nationalist Politics
Popular Threads
Ukraine.
Started by Declan
Feb 21, 2022
Replies: 15K
World at War
US Politics.
Started by jpc
Nov 7, 2022
Replies: 6K
USA
Mass Migration to Ireland & Europe
Started by Anderson
Feb 26, 2023
Replies: 5K
Nationalist Politics
C
🦠 Covid 19 Vaccine Thread 💉
Started by Charlene
Sep 14, 2021
Replies: 3K
Health
General Chat in The Marcus Lounge.
Started by Declan
Dec 30, 2024
Replies: 2K
Public Chat and Announcements
The Climate Change scam
Started by Anderson
Jul 29, 2022
Replies: 2K
Climate Change
Forums
Self Moderated Area
Tiger Blog
Origins Thread
Top
Bottom