Darwin's evolution theory in crisis

[Martin Euser]

While the media and popular authors continue to spread the message of Darwin's evolution-theory (and the new synthesis) as an established fact, more and more people, including a growing number of scientists, have their doubts about many of the claims made.

See Inverse logic in evolution-theory

Many of these objections have been known for a very long time. This raises the question why so many scientists choose to ignore the fundamental problems with evolution-theory.
Could it be they are afraid to acknowledge the possibility of spiritual views on life having any ground? It certainly seems so, judging the work of Richard Dawkins, whose work "The God Delusion" shows his ignorance of philosophical questions, beautifully shown by Alister McGrath, in his booklet "The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist fundamentalism and the denial of the divine".

[Martin Euser]

See for example Dissent from Darwin
for a starter.

[Charles Cosimano]

Data has nothing to do with philosophy. If the data supports evolution, and it certainly supports it better than it supports its competing ideas, then nothing else matters. It is not that the spiritual views of life, lack ground so much as they simply lack relevance.

[Martin Euser]

Please read the article before you make your comment. The data do NOT support DARWIN's evolution-theory. Many biologists are aware of this and see Darwin's evolution-theory as a nice narrative, not relevant to their daily research. Whether there is such a thing as evolution depends on the definition of evolution. If one means transformation of forms into other forms - then NO, no evidence. If one means development of principles/faculties, then YES, according to theosophy and this will be affirmed in future research. Many people do not know the facts about evolution-theory and what it actually has explained (or rather not has). Our society has been brain-washed into the extreme.
Many people are so gullible. They believe what they have been taught at schools. They are not to blame, but biologists and popularizers are.

[Charles Cosimano]

The article is wrong. It is as simple as that. Remember, Darwin wrote 150 years ago and of course his specifics are going to be out of date, but the principal remains sound, in fact we have the evidence in the human genome.

The evidence for biological evolution is incontrovertible. The only thing remaining to figure out is the mechanism.

[Martin Euser]

This is foolishness. You can't read this article with the associated papers within a day.
It requires careful scrutiny.

The genome of the diversity of species shows a varying degree of shared genes between these species.
There is, however, no known biological mechanism that can explain the postulated transformations of one species to another.
The problems for Darwinism to explain the observed variety in species have become greater and greater, ever since the discovery of the DNA molecule. This is an information-rich molecule. There is no one in this world that has been able to explain how such a structure could arise in the first place. Rather than looking at alternative explanations, the scientific community has chosen to ignore fundamental questions and ostracize alternative biologists. This attitude has been rightly refered to as the "church of scientism".

[Richard Silliker]

"There is, however, no known biological mechanism that can explain the postulated transformations of one species to another."

Its there. However we are indifferent to it. Try template swapping of DNA by virus.

[Martin Euser]

So Richard, how exactly would "template swapping" lead to a new species?
Lease indicate a link to relevant material on the web.

Not that any such mutation of DNA fragments would explain anything about the origin of DNA, nor do I see an explanation for the Cambrium explosion coming from it.

[Richard Silliker]

www.rationalmechanisms.com Regular postings will be done as the written materials have been edited.
We are unable to "see" cause and can only hope to elucidate it through forensics.

[Martin Euser]

Ok, I will have a look at this link soon.

[Richard Silliker]

Thank you

[Richard Silliker]

"The evidence for biological evolution is incontrovertible."

What evidence?

Mechanism : any given aggregate of levers that implement a lever.

[Martin Euser]

What is this supposed to clarify?