🦍 Darwinism is Doomed 🧐

[AGelbert]

April 19, 2023

Breakthroughs Unveil Foresight in Nature

Marcos Eberlin 🔬🧐 writes how advances in multiple scientific disciplines have identified evidence that a mind designed the laws of nature, our planetary system, and life.

Continue Reading

MARCOS NOGUEIRA EBERLIN
SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND CULTURE
A member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Marcos Eberlin received his PhD in chemistry from the University of Campinas (UNICAMP) and served as a postdoc at Purdue University. Back at UNICAMP, he founded and coordinated for 25 years the ThoMSon Mass Spectrometry (MS) Laboratory, making it an internationally recognized research center, one of the best-equipped and innovative MS laboratories worldwide. Eberlin has published nearly 1,000 scientific articles and is a recipient of many awards and honors, including the title of Commander of the National Order of Scientific Merit (2005) from Brazil's President, the Zeferino Vaz Award (2002) for excellence in teaching and research.

[AGelbert]

[Tonyprep]

Seems to be a guy who misunderstands evolution and is overawed by it but, in any case, it really doesn't matter to us whether the universe was designed or came into existence through natural processes. Darwinism isn't dead within studied biology, though, as it explains so much.

[K-Dog]

Seems to be a guy who misunderstands evolution and is overawed by it but, in any case, it really doesn't matter to us whether the universe was designed or came into existence through natural processes. Darwinism isn't dead within studied biology, though, as it explains so much.

Once I understood Darwinism. I understood Darwinism is not a theory.  Darwinism is actually a mathematical model of real life circumstance.

Even if things were designed (whatever that means), the fact is on the planet right now natural selection is happening.

And humans may select for extinction.   It is how the world works.

[FarmGirl]

Seems to be a guy who misunderstands evolution and is overawed by it but, in any case, it really doesn't matter to us whether the universe was designed or came into existence through natural processes. Darwinism isn't dead within studied biology, though, as it explains so much.

I'm a little suspicious myself when a CV is needed with bolded words demonstrating "nearly" 1000 articles written in an attempt to lend credence to...something. Did you determine if his voluminous writings translated into scientific reasoning of logical value?

[K-Dog]

Publishing 1,000 times a year on the golden throne is good production if you need something to compare it too.  In one year that would actually be too much production.  See a doctor.

[RE]

Seems to be a guy who misunderstands evolution and is overawed by it but, in any case, it really doesn't matter to us whether the universe was designed or came into existence through natural processes. Darwinism isn't dead within studied biology, though, as it explains so much.

Once I understood Darwinism. I understood Darwinism is not a theory.  Darwinism is actually a mathematical model of real life circumstance.

Even if things were designed (whatever that means), the fact is on the planet right now natural selection is happening.

And humans may select for extinction.   It is how the world works.

If Natural Selection is Survival of the Fittest, we don't really have it.  Fitness takes a back seat to location, the political system you happen to live under, how climate change affects your neighborhood, how well your particular monetary system holds up. and numerous other variables.  It's also hard to identify just what being fit to survive this collapse is, although some things make you more obviously less fit.  Being diabetic or having Parkinson's probably makes you less fit. Blindness, deafness and mental retardation also probably lower your Survival Fitness Quotient.  Being Rich is probably better than being Poor.

RE

[AGelbert]

Hmmmm, I see some excellent examples of the Backfire effect, but that is par for the course for those who have accepted the Theory of Evolution as reality based. Rather than address the issue brought up by a real scientist about whether or not the cell membrane could have evolved from random undirected processes (NOTE: the graphic above from Organic Chemist Dr. James Tour also evidences how wrong evolutionists are about cell membrane origins.), appeals to Evolution Theory Academic consensus and authority, plus questioning the credentials of said scientist with the temerity to question Evolution Theory ensued. 😕
 

If you Darwinists are so sure that 🦍 Evolution Theory can hold its own in any argument about any part of a cell or any biological mechanism that has the appearance of ☝🏻 Design, why do you refuse to argue the merits, if not because you are very uncomfortable with the very idea that we do not live in a random universe?

Let us forget our disparate worldviews and let us REASON together, shall we? Yeah, I'm a Christian and I do not want any of you to miss out on God's offer of Salvation through Jesus Christ, but that is irrelevant to the nuts and bolts subject of biological mechanisms. Either something COULD evolve or something, that is alive and thrives right now, COULD NOT have evolved. Now you all think everything that is alive evolved from some simpler life form through survival if the fittest natural selection. If that is true, then you need to seriously challenge, with facts, not opinions, ANY science based claim that argues against that assumption.

I'm not here to give you a hard time. If you want to believe this or that, you have free will to do that. I'm just 🤠 gonna post about lots of fascinating animals that we share this planet with. If you can explain, with facts, not opinons, how these animals evolved all the amazing processes in their anatomy and physiology, 'step by step' when they do not work unless the whole mechanism is present from the getgo, then please do.

Or, you can be honest, like this fellow that I respect for his honesty:   
       

Darwin was honest too. Why do you suppose most Darwinists only read what they want to read about what he wrote?
   

Here, for your study and amicable discussion, is the amazing Lampsylis Mussel.

I suggest, for the sake of NON-argument, to all of you who believe Evolution is scientifically valid, that you please elect a volunteer, who does not sneer (e.g. K-Dog), to explain to me, without breaking the rules you established here about reasoned and civilized (i.e. no Ad hom or other forms of verbal abuse like disdain, sarcasm, ridicule etc. allowed, you know what I mean) debate, how the Lampsylis Mussel "evolved" its method of reproduction. Please remember, though too many evolutionist forget, that it had to work the FIRST TIME, or there wouldn't be any happy Lampsylis Mussels around today using a very specific species of fish to ensure the survival of a new generation of Lampsylis Mussels. Please spare me terms like "co-evolution" and "common ancestors". Fish and mussels, even by evolutionary biology standards are not even remotely similar genetically. Mussels cannot see. Mussels have no eyes. Mussels never had any eyes. Without EYES an organism CANNOT 'select' through 'random undirected processes' from different types of muscle pattern and color to use as a lure. YET, a small portion of their 'foot' muscle perfectly mimics, IN COLOR AND PATTERN, the APPEARANCE of a species of fish that a very specific type of bass loves to eat. Evolutionists claim this took place over "millions of years". That is obviously false because mussels of this species would have been 'selected OUT' (i.e. DIED OFF due to NO VIABLE OFFSPRING, EXTINCT, you get the idea) if they could not do this from the FIRST generation. To understand why that is so, watch the video. 🧐
 
AGelbert NOTE: Go to 4:42 for Lampsylis Mussel discussion.

Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution 3 | David Hames 🤠 | ]Dr. Jobe Martin

https://youtu.be/hGYMbj_0LMQ

Exploration Films 30.9K subscribers 31,273 views  Sep 26, 2021

Enter the fascinating world of animals to reveal sophisticated and complex designs that shake the traditional foundations of evolutionary theory. Featured in this program are Lampsylis Mussel, Horses, Ostrichs, Hummingbirds, Dogs, Manatees, Elephants, Butterflies, Cuttlefish, Penguins and Milopina Bees. Their designs cannot possibly be explained by evolution but only by a Creator.

This series features Dr. Jobe Martin, who for the past 20 years, has been exploring evolution vs. creation. His findings have been fascinating students around the world as he lectures on these remarkable animal designs that cannot be explained by traditional evolution.

Clear evidence that animal designs can only be attributed to a Creator.

Director: Steve Greisen
Writer: Steve Greisen
Stars: ⭐ David Hames, 🌟 Jobe Martin

[RE]

I think you can make a case for either Intelligent Design or Random Evolutionary Mutations as possible in the development of life on earth, or both may have contributed in some way.  Either way, we are here now, and I'm not sure how either case sheds any light on what our future will be in the aftermath of collapse?  Would it be helpful if we got here through Intelligent Design, or would it indicate the Design wasn't so Intelligent and the flaws led to collapse?  Is it helpful if we got here through Random Mutations, or does it mean that chances are slim we can evolve quickly enough to be helpful?

RE

[K-Dog]

To smart for our own good.  Like the Irish deer with giant antlers.  Our need to devolute you can't dispute!

[FarmGirl]

Let us forget our disparate worldviews and let us REASON together, shall we? Yeah, I'm a Christian and I do not want any of you to miss out on God's offer of Salvation through Jesus Christ, but that is irrelevant to the nuts and bolts subject of biological mechanisms.

We blessed to be Muslim do not want you to miss out on Gods offer of afterlife through the teachings of Muhammad, and that is never irrelevant. How quickly you deem your beliefs irrelevant, are you what they call one of those "Sunday morning" type Christians? 

Darwin was honest too. Why do you suppose most Darwinists only read what they want to read about what he wrote?

Because that is what Christians do?

[RE]

Being "Blessed" to be one religion implies that those who do not practice that religion are not Blessed.  Another way of saying "god is on my side" or "only blessed people go to Heaven".  Everyone else is destined to burn in everlasting damnation in the fire and brimstone of Hell.  This tends to create animosity between people with different religious beliefs.  I don't consider myself Blessed to be a Panentheist.  It's just a choice I made which I am pretty sure will get me a nice seat at the Dais of Everlasting Glory in the Kingdom of Heaven.  I expect some people with other beliefs will be invited to the Reception also, though they might not have such a good seat.  As long as I don't have to sit at the same table with most of them for the rest of Eternity, I should be able to enjoy the meal. lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9yYJ6ZAYns

RE

[K-Dog]

I should be able to enjoy the meal.

If there is no coffee in heaven there is also no waiting for it.

[FarmGirl]

Being "Blessed" to be one religion implies that those who do not practice that religion are not Blessed.

I agree. Religious nuttery is a wildly interesting and personal topic, and pretends that devout Christians like David Koresh are any different than some Taliban leader or another.

Being a Panentheist makes absolute sense when compared to any modern religious nuttery.