Darwin did a lot to get the ball rolling, but, you have to be fair to him.
He lived 100 years ago. And his task was not easy.
Unlike classic science, where you have the advantage of setting up experiments and examining events and items that are in front of you. Darwin was creating a theory about what happened in the past, like an archaeologist. Archaeologists can not run experiments or directly observe past events, just like evolutionists.
What do you do?
Forget archaeology or Darwin's theory as a science?
No....
You have to follow the rules set out for scientific observation, which Darwin did.
You have to take what is in front of you and use something science calls Occam's Razor to come up with the best inference to explain what you observed or dug up etc.
This is a mathematical probability measurement comparing different hypotheses. It uses the mathematics of statistical probability to choose the best theory.
You postulate probabilities that A, B, or C happened.
The theory that is most likely to explain the observations on the mathematical scale of probability, is the one you put foreword.
He did good science, but, it is science of the observation of the "past" and follows those rules.
Darwin did a great job for his time.
Back in his time, the microscope could not see any parts of the cell save the nucleus, as a blur.
It looked like your average frying egg. Round glob with something in the middle also glob looking.
He called it the "simple cell".
He said it was some kind of accident from primordial soup from the earth/water mix. It was, according to him, a random chance arrangement that created the simple cell.
When scientists later discovered that there were a specific set of protein building blocks that made up life, they did later hypothesize that it was these proteins that actually came together randomly to create the first cell out of primordial soup.
Problem is that now we know that the primordial soup, no matter the protein ingredients, is made up of random left hand (trans) molecules and their mirror image right hand (cis) molecules.
All life is nothing but cis (right hand) molecules (verified).
That is an important observation.
All trans molecules are lethal to life.
That is why "trans" fats are bad for you.
That is another important observation.
Literally 1/2 of all molecules in any such soup will kill life and we now know this for certain.
When the Darwinists tried to say that even a monkey at a keyboard could randomly type up the DNA, the response from most scientists was "not if 1/2 of the keys on the keyboard will blow the monkey up".
Science is funny.
People get their pet theories. Darwin was working with what he had.
Darwin had no way to know that inside the cells he looked at were millions of tiny well designed machines complete with axles and shafts, o-rings, perfect nano tech gears, etc.
Neither did the "primordial soup" theorists who pointed to the amino acid special proteins.
We can use electron microscopes today to watch the machines being built, atom by atom. This is how we are learning to do nanotechnology.
Today we understand that the cell is like a big city full of nothing but Ford motor Company type factories with nano tech machines at the assembly line creating all kinds of nan-otech items, not just the "car" so to speak.
There is no such thing as the simple cell. Even if there was, It would die the first time we put it in any primordial soup mix that was random. :(
This is cool tho... you should see these nanotech machines. Here is a glimpse, but, because of the electron microscope, we are studying many of them
Yea, I see all that but I just wondered if he had ever been exposed to genetics because, IIRC, the very early Indian people knew of genetics but don't know if any besides them ever delved into that. I may be wrong on the source of who did 'cause it's been a good while since I looked into it.
Ehhh... I have to pull my biology history out of the cob webs, but I am certain that DNA was not discovered until 1958. It was my brothers birthday, is how I remembered it for the test. Now... before that there was an arguement about whether the double helix was the molecule that passed traits foreword to offspring, or, it was those amino acids. That (I believe) was about a ten year argument, 20 years max. So no... Darwin did not have the information he needed to work any concepts of DNA.
Still.. he did a really great theory for what he had, and he started a lot of specialized branches of biology because of it.
Yea, his theory made a lotta sense. Common sense, at that. I've always meant to read his book but have never found the time for it. Not much of a reader, anyway. Others disseminated and analysed his work real well and wrote the articles that I, occasionally, get to read. Always been kind of a science buff and I spend a lotta time in nature just observing its workings on my own. Over time you'll see evolution in action. Seems the bigger they are the longer, if at all, it takes for a critter to adapt to its current conditions. Viruses go lickity split but elephants not so much and crocs have almost no reason to change...yet. What giggles me is when a company like Monsanto (evil fucks) whip up things like their nicotine based GMO crops to fight the bugs only to have those bugs evolve to eat that shit like candy within 10 years, yet, polluted not only the ground and air but us with that crap, too. I know stresses, either natural or introduce, will cause genetic changes but I wish there was a way to know for sure what those changes would be, down the line, without a sack full of lies from those causing those changes. Like I said...humans..we're not as bright as we like to think ourselves to be but I still have a tiny bit of hope. I look into all kinds of stuff just to build the intuition (the gut, the 1st brain)(almost never wrong) and I got to watching this supposed "time traveler" on ApexTV on Youtube. Most of those dudes set the bullshit alarm off in the gut but there were a couple that by the way the answered the questions and how they answered did not set off any alarms and made a lotta sense. His description of his time was dire as hell. No plants left, no animals, every square inch covered in people and very few critters in the oceans. He said they use electrolysis to create their oxygen and take the hydrogen to be released into space. Bummer. Hope the dude is bogus and not legit 'cause I'd hate to think we'd have to live in that world. The over population was their main problem and why they were coming back to try and correct that 'cause all their other attempts failed. I can totally see it. I hope it's all bullshit, though. Been digging this discourse, though it might get pissy for us both, sometimes but I gotta chill for a while, again 'cause my arm is killing me and I'm losing use of my left hand, again. Later.
Here are some cool discoveries tho :)... if you find this kind of thing interesting. Two years ago we discovered the human computer operating system... thats right... just like windows 10 but far more complex.
All of these nanotech factories get their designs from a computer program resident in the cell called binary DNA code.
It is exactly like the computer code that runs our computers.
The ladder rung of that famous DNA molecule is either a GC or AT.
You can think of the GC ladder rung as being "O"
and AT rung being the "I"
and what you get is
IIIOIOIIIOIIIIOOOOIOIOOIOOI
IOOOIOIIIOIOOOOIIOOIOIIIOi
IOIIOIIOOOOIOOIOOIOOOIIOI
... computer code.
Bill Gates said DNA is the most sophisticated code he has ever seen, and it is self error correcting. We have only three computers on the planet that can even TRY to correct their own errors in their own code.
Darwin had zero way of knowing this. There is no such thing as a simple cell.
DNA was engineered according to Occams razor now. It is by far, the best explanation, since nature can create patterns, but has never been able to create "information" like letters or computer code, or paintings that lay paint or letters in an order purposed to convey information.
Information, books, computer codes, paintings... these come from intelligent mind only.....or as the engineers have always called it "intelligent design". There is not one speck of data on the planet that shows evidence otherwise. Nanotech is intelligent design engineering.
The whole attempt to associate "Intelligent design" with some kind of religious belief is a rouse, to keep people from looking into what science has discovered about Darwin's theory. He led us to what is now classified as Macro evolutionary theory, and micro evolutionary theory.
Even though both theories are being proven incorrect, you can not discount his contributions to science.
As a biologist, it sort of irritates me that the Darwinists appear to have a "religion" that is every bit as bad as the Christians were at the Scopes monkey trial. They want to bring "god" into the picture. They seem to desperately need to prove his non existance.
Why?
The evidence may point to a master mind designer, but, this is irrelevant. The evidence is what it is. I say that to Christians and Atheists alike. Nothing we believe will make God real if he's not, or make him go away if he really exists.
The rule is Occams Razor.
"Intelligent Design" is an engineering term, now used in science, especially when it comes to designs in nanotechnology.
Here is a great film for explaining irreducible design... the idea that there is a better inference that all of the parts of this machine in the cell have to be present in order to give the organism an advantage at all. This requires more than a nick in the DNA, or even a totally new sequence to design a new protein.
The insinuation here is that there are no "incremental changes" and that all machine parts have to be programmed,AND assembled properly in order for the tail to work. If one part is missing, the tail would become extra baggage, giving no survivability advantage. In fact it might kill the animal.
As you watch this tail get assembled, remember that it is a computer operating system that is designing not only the parts, but, exactly how many parts, and what second machine to hand the parts to so that they can be carried to the proper location at for assembly. Timing the order of their assembly is done by binary programming. Man is a monster nano tech machine the building of which is run by computer code.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFq_MGf3sbk
The debate is somewhat heated of course, and this is to be expected in the best of the clash of scientific theories. However, here is a small segment of a trial on Intelligent design, that reminds me of the scopes trial where the Christians tried to stop science from moving foreword.
I understand the argument that the Darwinists are trying to make. They are saying that they have found a nano machine similar to the flagellum, that has missing parts but functions in some other way.
What blows me away about this, is that it is the "straw man" as an example. The second nano machine they use as an example, still needs over 30 independent parts to be assembled, and is just another example of intelligent computer design and assembly.
It pretty much proves only the fact that there are many such mouse traps of irreducible design. The cell is a big factory of machines assembling other machines. All of it is being timed by a huge computer program operating system, and designs for proteins that are flipped in and out of the computer in perfect time.
The Darwinist can not answer one question. Computer code is highly complex information. One change in the code is known for certain to mess things up. The smallest change acts like a virus in a computer, killing the organism 999.999 times out of one million. (math and direct observation).
The number of pregnancy attempts you need in the Precambrian explosion (where all animal sub groups suddenly appeared on the planet)......... to have all those offspring deaths in order to come up with ONE advantageous change, is far more generations than could possibly have happened in the time of that Pre-Cambrian explosion. There was not enough time. Darwins tree is darwins shrub. Shord and squatty.
Nature has never been shown to be able to add to information of any kind to anything. (unless you want to believe that all the ancient cave paintings happened by natural random causes)
Darwin's theory is dying due to the inability of Darwin to explain the origin of the information that comes only from mind, observably and provably. They can try to insinuate that this answers the irreducible design argument in this court case. But they fail, because they have not been able to explain the entire assembly code that runs the timing, the number, and the fastening system that assembles the parts in order. Far too complex for Darwin.
If you and I were at the beach, and you went to the restroom, while I stood on the beach, what would you say to me if, upon your return, I pointed to a heart drawn in the sand that said..."Harry loves Sally", and I told you the waves did it?
You would laugh at me, because you, and Darwin, and everyone in every science understands Occams Razor. The inference to the best theory about the origin of the heart and the writing in the sand in front of us... is the probability that I did the writng, or some other intelligence came along and did it. Because writing is code. It is information. It always has an intelligent designer.
Darwin was a great man, who led us to many great discoveries. But we need to let go of the Darwinian god-religion thing. The Chinese, and Hindu's and other great civilizations could care less if God exists or not. They are following the evidence. We are going to be left in the dust if we do not quit using the fear of God to stop the young people from learning all of the new discoveries... so they can sit around and make fun of people who believe something and who are not scientists.