Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity

You are not connected. Please login or register

Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Theory of evolution » Todays news: Darwins Theory of Natural selection has been falsified and is dead. R.I.P.

Todays news: Darwins Theory of Natural selection has been falsified and is dead. R.I.P.

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]


Todays news: Darwins Theory of  Natural selection has been falsified and is dead.  R.I.P.

Thanks Jorge Rodriguez

In the last few days, i was actively searching, and  expecting to find  science papers providing empirical evidence,  demonstrating how natural selection would lead  to increase over time in the frequency of a favored allele,  producing more offspring than individuals of the other genotypes. The favoured allele would become more common at each generation and would eventually become fixed in the population. That was the long standing claim. 

What Jorge linked to at uncommon descent, is  demonstrable evidence that the theory of NS  is wrong. It was demonstrably falsified and refuted.  

There are other grounds to refute Darwins claims through the Theory of evolution , regarding other aspects:

but i am referring specifically to NS. 

thats BIG ! And put BIG on that !! Wow.... 

It was reported in January 2017 by PHY.ORG, and Nature, but surprisingly, did not cause much buzz, and i didn't take note  either. 

Scientists engineer animals with ancient genes to test causes of evolution
January 13, 2017
“For the first test case, we chose a classic example of adaptation-how fruit flies evolved the ability to survive the high alcohol concentrations found in rotting fruit. We found that the accepted wisdom about the molecular causes of the flies’ evolution is simply wrong.

Siddiq and Thornton realized that this hypothesis could be tested directly using the new technologies. Siddiq first inferred the sequences of ancient Adh genes from just before and just after D. melanogaster evolved its ethanol tolerance, some two to four million years ago. He synthesized these genes biochemically, expressed them, and used biochemical methods to measure their ability to break down alcohol in a test tube. The results were surprising: the genetic changes that occurred during the evolution of D. melanogaster had no detectable effect on the protein’s function.

What’s that you say? No detectable effect?

One supposes that the gene selected is one, among very many, that can be best ‘reverse-engineered’ to give a facsimile of the ‘ancient’ form. Yet, when tested in vivo, there is no difference found between the supposed ‘slow’ ancestral gene, and the ‘fast’ extant form. This is not how neo-Darwinism is supposed to work. Something is seriously wrong, no?

It might be that the techniques employed to identify the ‘ancestral’ form are bad. Maybe that’s it, and it alone. But, OTOH, maybe something is seriously wrong with current neo-Darwinian theory.

Some notions concerning adaptation will therefore remain difficult to study rigorously. Nevertheless, because of technical and conceptual advances, it should now be possible to experimentally assess the causal predictions of many previously untested or weakly tested hypotheses of historical molecular adaptation, allowing them to be corroborated or, like the classic hypothesis of ADH divergence in D.melanogaster, decisively refuted.

One wonders what’s really left of natural selection. Between Behe’s Edge of Evolution, Shapiro’s “Natural Genetic Engineering,” the whole field of epigenetics, the disappearing of “Junk-DNA”, and now the disappearance of a ‘fitness’ change in a “classic case” of molecular adaptation, can anyone seriously believe that Darwinism has much to say about how life evolves?

Remarkably, already in 2010, following paper reported that the claim of NS was not observed in Drosophila. 

Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. 
2010 Sep 15
"Genomic changes caused by epigenetic mechanisms tend to fail to fixate in the population, which reverts back to its initial pattern." That's not all that doesn't fixate. Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles. This is notable because in wild populations we expect the strength of natural selection to be less intense and the environment unlikely to remain constant for ~600 generations. Consequently, the probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments.

Principal Meanings of Evolution in Biology Textbooks

Primary, and secondary speciation

Is there evidence for natural selection ?

Eukaryotes evolved from Prokaryotes. Really ?

On the Origin of Mitochondria: Reasons for Skepticism on the Endosymbiotic Story

Unicellular and multicellular Organisms are best explained through design

"Tetrapods evolved" . Really ?

Is there evidence for natural selection ?

What are the mechanisms that drive adaptation to the environment, microevolution, and secondary speciation ?

Macroevolution. Fact, or fantasy ?

Where Do Complex Organisms Come From?

The tree of life, common descent, common ancestry, a failed hypothesis

View user profile


Todays news:   Darwins Theory of natural selection is dead. 1859 - 2017. It died in January 2017 by a unexpected tragic accident during a scientific investigation, but only now, became more broadly public. R.I.P.

So sad for all fervorous advocates of the theory. It lasted 158 years. But hey, i just discovered the TRUE mechanism of biodiversity and evolution !! My great geniality , perspicaciousness and devotion to scientific research, inquiry and observation permitted me to make this amazing discovery !! I don't let you orphans. I am the father of a new theory !!

Based on my scientific research, i am now creating the Theory of the PINK INVISIBLE MARSIAN UNICORNS as the true twiddler and selectors of positive mutations and invite all perspective scientists to test my theory. It was not intended, but hey, my expectation is i will get famous, and who knows, even win the Nobel prize !! I need support, ladies and gentlemen, to make the PINK INVISIBLE MARSIAN UNICORN, in short (PIMU), known. Books about biology need now to be rewritten, and PIMU must be teached all over the globe at public schools !! . All it takes to viralize it on FB, and somehow, somewhere, Nature, PLOS ONE , ncbi etc. will take notice, and a horde of scientists will be convinced and engaged in starting the elaboration of highly convincing scientific papers and scientific tests which will not permit to doubt about PIMU. PIMU will become a new unquestionable FACT ( woo who doubts it !! ) . Since its invisible, its not easy detected, but thats no problem, speciation occurs and can be observed. Therefore, it MUST be there. That cannot other than become a FACT !! Nobody entitled to question my great new discovery of the 21th century or i will denounce them as superstitionalists, believers of the supernatural without evidence, deniars of science and reality, believers of the pink unicorn ( not mine of course ), irrationalists, stupids, idiots, trolls without qualifications, incredulous!, know nothings and illiterates. To my supporters: Lets celebrate pimu. LONG LIVE PIMU !! Standing ovations, please . Open the bottles of champagne.......

View user profile

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum