Neo-Darwinism is Dead

Video Clips
http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2098198/f/evolution.mov
http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2098198/i/biochem.mov

Molecular biology has learned it is not the genetic code that accounts for the difference between the mouse and the fly or between a virus and a chicken. This, evidently has been known for quite a while:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...20News&id=2738

Biochemical changes do not seem to be a main driving force in the diversification of living organisms…It is not biochemical novelty that generated diversification of organisms…What distinguishes a butterfly from a lion, a hen from a fly, or a worm from a whale is much less a difference in chemical constitutes than in the organization and the distribution of these constituents.” Francois Jacob, a founding father of biochemical genetics, 1977.

The researchers who cracked the genetic code immediately realized that it was universal. Sermonti

In 1989, Hox genes (clusters of genes) were discovered in mice and worms. Soon after, it was realized that every creature on earth was constructed with the same clusters of genes. However these universal gene clusters manifested themselves in different animals, and thus, were responsible for different regions.

For example, the same gene that’s responsible for the tail of the mouse, as well is responsible for the rear extremities of the grasshopper. Sermonti

So what is it that makes a mouse a mouse, a fly a fly? The fact is, no one knows….and from what I understand they will never know. One thing that is known, however, is that DNA is not the dictator of life that was once thought. It no longer assumes the role as life’s grand generator of genetic information.

It is not the genes that elicit nascent form, but the nascent form that selects the genes and recruits them for its program Sermonti

It’s clear to me that contemporary science has only one eye open to how nature really works. Instead of natural observations, science, instead has an obsession to dig below the surface and focus on genetics. It’s a bizarre fixation on the flask and test tube. But there’s a reason for this odd diversion…and it’s because nature – as it truly operates – shatters theTheory of Evolution. Thus, the truth about how nature operates is very difficult to find.

But it is true that every individual animal on earth is at one with his environment. It’s the REAL way things “evolve.” – individually. And it starts at the moment of conception, when a mental and physical “agreement” of sorts forms -- and the animal melts and molds himself into his surroundings. This is when traits are passed from mother to daughter and/or formed by its habitat. It has nothing to do with genetics. Instead, specific traits are but responses to external stimuli that act on hormones.


Very early on in the development of the embryo, the unformed organism begins a miraculous swirl of unexplainable self-organization. It also immediately starts receiving feedback. This feedback not only stems from its immediate surroundings, but from the external world as well -- through parental hormones. It’s the beginning of a lifelong relationship. No doubt when we were developing in our mother’s womb, we learned to recognize our mother and father’s voices. Thus our minds began to be imprinted by their loving presence. In fact, the mind begins the process of receiving all kinds of stimuli…and this stimuli not only helps form mental and emotional traits, but physical traits as well. It’s the marvelous beginning of a relationship between a new life and the outside world.

The developing embryo responds with little shocks and shivers as these discharges go about shaping the body. Sermonti

The mind and the world arise together. Fransico Varela

Morphogenesis is a process that depends on stresses and relaxations . Lev Belousso

The soul is that excitable little something that awakens when the sperm and egg embrace In the early embryo, forces are activated that evoke the form of the body, bringing it into relationship with the outside world. Sermonti

It is maybe possible that the smaller the creature, the more quickly adaptive it is, and maybe some small animals could adapt a little..... Likewise, animals that are more “liquid” (i.e. octopus, fish, etc) are adaptive. Thus a lion will be slower to adapt than adapt than a dog. A full-sized human is less adaptive than a baby. A bear is less adaptive than a fox. And this is proven by the fact that lots of smaller arctic animals can change fur color over the seasons (the hare, fox, weasel, squirrel, etc)…while deer and bears generally take longer – years possibly. But it can and does happen. I suggest every animal on earth has this ability, just in varying degrees and varying timeframes.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/natbltn/700-799/nb706.htm COLOR CHANGES IN FISH, FROGS AND LIZARDS



when we were at our most adaptive state….it’s when we are not yet formed, yet have the ability to generate multiple forms based on internal signals and external stimuli. These signals start the process of transformation. This is partly how our destiny is decided, as proven here:

http://www.sicb.org/meetings/2003/sy...lasticity.php3

I submit that every animal develops different traits like the butterfly. And this is because all animals have consciousness and inherent intelligence in their genomes – and this intelligence works off external cues, which, for example, can help a lizard change colors or re-grow a lost limb or tail. The idea that the body can do this without the mind or internal intelligence is absurd. There could be no regeneration of the tail if there’s not some sort of consciousness, thought, or intelligence behind it.

The fact is, countless creatures can quickly change color – or emerge in a different color -- in response to an environmental change. There is no genetic change, it’s simply the result of a psychological phenomenon during development – or even later in life. I believe peppered moths are a perfect example. Of course you will never read this at a neo-darwin website because the reality of morphological plasticity is often withheld in such places. But like mammals, fish, lizards, frogs and other insects, moths have the ability to quickly change colors without a long genetic journey or death to a large segment of their population. Mind over matter…not matter over mind. That’s how our world was Created.

http://ourfcs.friendscentral.org/mot...yphenism1.html


But Darwin’s theory of evolution suggests that it’s matter over mind – and that animals change so they can become something different….I however, suggest that every animal changes so they can stay who they are…it’s the mind in action that keeps nature steady. It’s much like when kids first learn to walk. There is lots of wobbling from side-to-side going on, but it iss all that wobbling that allows them to stay on their feet. It’s no different with animals….animals wobble back and forth physically so they can avoid falling over (extinction). And since scientists cannot find even ONE airtight intermediate fossil, then I suggest that this is all there is to so-called “evolution.” Ultimately, very little is left to chance…Nature does not operate by flipping coins.

Things are as they are because they were as they were. Rupert Sheldrake

Darwinists may try to claim that these abilities were evolved. But the problem lies here: DNA can no more create evolutionary change in animals than a single, unfertilized egg can create a baby: --(the following quote is very important)

One of the fundamental principles of molecular biology (now enshrined as Central Dogma) assigned to DNA the role of absolute governor of the life and inheritance for the cell, and consequently for the organism. The Central Dogma proclaimed: DNA reproduces itself and produces proteins; proteins do not reproduce themselves and are unable to modify the DNA that encoded them. In other words, the information proceeds from DNA to DNA and from DNA to proteins, but it never makes the return journey from proteins to DNA……The egg makes the hen; the hen doesn’t really make the egg – she merely lays eggs that derive directly form the egg that made her. In the new molecular version, DNA was the egg and proteins the hen….. Sermonti

….DNA is not the primary container of genetic information. Sermonti

So what does this mean? It means that since DNA is neither the starting point, nor the ending point. And it could not have played the role in evolution as Darwinists claim. DNA is merely a part of the never-ending circle of life. It’s merely a spoke in the genetic wheel; a curve in the spiral of life.

And the reason evolutionists don't admit that information makes a round trip within the body is because they do not want to admit that acquired characteristics can be inherited....which is what this would indicate. I believe this is why evolutionists have long shouted-down larmarcksim -- which basically says the mechanism of inheritance (the genes contained in our sexual cells) can be effected by the external environment. This is a mortal blow to their theory. Thus, they insist that the genetic system is a one-way street. Information can go out...but it can't come back in, and it certainly cannot be passed on and/or used to alter the characteristics of a future offspring. Evolutionists insist on chance. And this is the anti-chance in action. Yet…cracks are starting to form:


http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...-genetics.html

Mendelian inheritance, the central tenet of genetics, is under attack from a few scrawny weeds that have not read the textbooks. The weeds are somehow inheriting DNA sequences from their grandparents that neither of their parents possessed - which is supposed to be impossible. (quote from above link)

See, with acquired characteristics, my thought is the following: Traits such as muscle-building, cutting off the tails of mice, or any other physically acquired trait is probably not able to be acquired. However, traits that are stimulated by hormones could very possibly be acquired. If this were found to be true, the inexplicable circle of life would be undeniable:

God is a circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere. Empedocles

According to these observations, genetic information is not like a ward where babies are born but rather like a registry office where citizens can check their vital statistics and make them complete again if any have been lost. Sermonti

And as it turns out, traits such as color, pigmentation, eye color, hair color, etc are often modified by only one gene, one nucleotide of over 5 billion. This would require only a simple mutation or a signal in the developing embryo to change the organism:

There are several different kinds of variations of the phenotype that can be induced by the environment, and many of them can lead to long-term changes in a population….there are some variations in the phenotype that can result from changes in the DNA sequence…….The mutations I am calling for are those that show evidence of being nonrandom in that they are triggered by the environment. Some of them have been seen to be adaptive. These mutations could lead to observed evolution. These mutations act as switches triggered by the environment that switch the genome to one of preexisting set of potential states to produce an adaptive phenotype. (slightly shortned/paraphrased) Spetner

In the model of the heritable switch, a change in the environment sends a signal to each member of the population. This signal activates a genetic command in each individual to call up a preprogrammed subroutine, If the new environment does not last long, the population will revert to its previous state. But if the new environment persists for a long enough time, then even after the environment changes, the population will remain in its new state. The new state is carried into future generations, and to this extent is heritable. The heritability is, however not absolute. A different cue can make the population change again. But the longer the environmental cue lasts, the more nearly heritable the effect appears. Spetner.

But like I said before, today’s science seems to be obsessed on genes, while turning a blind eye on real nature. And the reason for this is because a few lingering scientists are holding out faith that by studying mere genes they can somehow/someday learn to construct a new species of animal. But this is proving to be impossible. And the reason it’s impossible is because even though there are such thing as “blue eye genes” and “dark skin genes,” there are no such things as “mouse genes” or “cat genes.” And that’s because the greatest differences in life are not dictated by genes. Instead, genes are dictated by life’s differences. The sun is not orbiting the earth, the earth is orbiting the sun. Science is has turned a blind eye to half of the story.

Thus, ultimately it seems in order for a fish to evolve into a reptile, the invisible internal program that dictates the genes for a fish, must somehow evolve into a program that dictates the genes for a reptile. This, of course, is absurd and defies all rationality. Thus, evolution, at least as neo-darwinists define it, is no longer breathing.

The potential for adaptivity to the environment already exists in the genome. The environment just triggers it. Spetner

Lee Spetner, Not By Chance

Giuseppe Sermonti Why is a Fly not a Horse?




http://www.biology-online.org/biolog...moms_diet.html

The reason some animals were yellow and some were brown lay deep in their fetal past, biologists at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., reported this month: Some of the mothers consumed supplements high in very simple molecular compounds that zip around the genome turning off genes. One silenced gene was for yellow fur; when it is turned off, the mouse's fur color defaults to brown. For the mice, it wasn't just that "you are what you eat," but that you are what your mother ate, too.

uh oh.....I thought darwinists said that genes live in isolation? I thought the environment couldn't cause a mutation? I thought individual traits had to arise spontaneously?


But Ok, don't take my word for it.

The complex mechanism of life has existed from the very begginning

It is tempting to extrapolate that gain of hox genes in a cluster increases the complexity of an organism by allowing additional segments to be specified. Initially these would be just like adjacent segments, but there would be opportunity to evolve into more specialized functions. For example, if there are three sets of legs in insects, could another set of legs be added just by duplicating a hox gene that specified a leg segment of the body? What do the hox gene clusters of spiders, centipedes and millipedes look like? Are there dozens of duplicated hox genes that specify many identical segments? This provides the possibility of macroevolution. Duplication of hox genes, or whole hox gene clusters, followed by deletion and mutation might alter a species very dramatically in a short time period.

The notion that additional body segments might arise from duplicated hox genes was disproven by analyzing ther hox gene clusters of centipedes and onychophorans. The International Society of Developmental Biologists and the Society for Developmental Biology met in July 1997 at Alta, Utah. Researchers reported that centipedes and onychophorans, primitive, wormlike creatures believed to be the closest living relatives of the organisms that gave rise to the arthropods, including insects, have the same eight homeobox (Hox) genes as insects themselves. This indicates that the diverse body segments of insects did not evolve as a result of Hox gene duplication as previously thought, but may instead have arisen as a result of changes in Hox gene regulation. (Science 277, 639 1997).

It still seems that organisms were complex from the begginning

Mutations in the 8 genes of the HOM complex cause large scale mutations in flies. A mutation in bithorax causes a fly to have an extra set of wings. Mutation in antennapedia causes a leg to grow where an antenna should be. These genes are not master switches for making wings or legs, but they specify position in the fly's body. The order of the genes on the chromosome is the same as the order of segments in the fly's body where they are expressed. The left most gene is expressed in the head, the right most gene is expressed in the abdomen. When a gene is deleted or mutated, the segment where it is normally expressed cannot tell where it is because its position clue is gone, so it behaves like the closest segment to it. That is why a bithorax mutation causes an extra set of wings. The segments adjacent to the bithorax segment dictated what should be made.

http://www.salon.com/health/log/1999...its/index.html
http://www.newstarget.com/020068.html
https://notes.utk.edu/Bio/greenberg....5?OpenDocument
http://www.biology-online.org/biolog...selection.html

[GodlessHeathen]

YES!!!! A new conspiracy theorist nutjob for people to pick apart!

Maybe now we'll stop picking on each other for a while and the mood around here will improve.

Go ahead and try, the bottom line is that hox genes prove centipedes and worms have no common ancestor at all, and that the idea of natural selection is false.

[Mog]

I'm not sure you'd really want to heavily quote Sermonti in your thesis.

Here is a review of one of his books.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/...m_over_su.html

[Mog]

And here's an article refuting Spetner's claims

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/info...n/spetner.html

You are checking Neo-Darwinism's defense for yourself, right? These aren't too hard too google.

[DrunkMonkey]

WHAT THE FUCK?

So the fact that a lot of organisms have a commons set of gene complexes affecting development means they aren't related? How can you possible come up with such a backwards-ass statement like that?

This guy clearly discredits himself right here:

The soul is that excitable little something that awakens when the sperm and egg embrace In the early embryo, forces are activated that evoke the form of the body, bringing it into relationship with the outside world. Sermonti

Excitable little something? Where does it come from? When the sperm and egg come together (actually when the first sperm makes it through a certain layer) chemical reactions occur that block out other sperm and begin the process of development which is controlled by the genes.

Evo Devo is a very well developed field. All of this shit is utter nonsense.

[Kate]

[Philboid Studge]

When a jeetard comes along ...

... you must whip it!

[GodlessHeathen]

Philboid Studge wrote

When a jeetard comes along ...

... you must whip it!

:rock:

[Eva]

whip it gooooood!

he's been whipped...

[Philboid Studge]

Am I crazy or is the dude behind the pillar BEAJ? I guess both could be true ...

69xxx is clearly cherry-picking from the literature. He doesn't understand the significance of homologues, paralogues, orthologues, etc. when talking about "the same genes", we are really talking about genes of similar function or sequence. Genome sequencing has shown that mice and grasshoppers do not have the same genome. They may have related genes, but the splicing sites are different, codon usage is different, etc.

So he's a lamarkist, eh.... If I cut off my right arm will my kids be born without right arms?

Assmaster3000.

You know someone is a creationist when he refers to evolution as Darwinism or neo-Darwinism.

[Sternwallow]

GodlessHeathen wrote

YES!!!! A new conspiracy theorist nutjob for people to pick apart!

Maybe now we'll stop picking on each other for a while and the mood around here will improve.

Oh, but what about all of those poor misguided Nobel laureates who have wasted entire careers on useless bafflegab?

I am sure that 69xxx is heaven-sent to give us purpose and direction. I may predict a Lilyesque exchange is coming.

This guy(?) has a neat stable of (perhaps German) writers (I hesitate to call them authors) who would overturn the sciences that provide their medicine and health care.

Evolution may be wrong. After all it is just the best supported theory since gravity and only slightly better attested than Heliocentrism.

The main question I have is whether we will consume him in a short, but exciting bonfire or nip at him till he retreats like all the rest.

[Sternwallow]

myst7426 wrote

You know someone is a creationist when he refers to evolution as Darwinism or neo-Darwinism.

You also know he is a nutjob when he invokes a soul for any purpose whatsoever.