Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution
Rate it:
Open Preview
Kindle Notes & Highlights
2%
Flag icon
the very cofounder of the theory of evolution was an intelligent-design proponent.
3%
Flag icon
I had been led to believe in Darwin’s theory not because of strong evidence for it. Rather, it was for sociological reasons—that simply was the way educated people were expected to think these days.
6%
Flag icon
much of modern evolutionary biology is also cloaked by a thick pretense of knowledge.
6%
Flag icon
Gratuitous affirmations of a dominant theory can mesmerize the unwary. They lull people into assuming that objectively difficult problems don’t really matter. That they’ve been solved already. Or will be solved soon. Or are unimportant. Or something. They actively distract readers from noticing an idea’s shortcomings.
14%
Flag icon
Darwinism’s icy grip on modern intellectual life is based on shoddy philosophy, not science.
14%
Flag icon
the more we learn about a system, the more sophisticated and elegant we discover it to be.
21%
Flag icon
all life on earth developed over vast ages by descent with modification, driven primarily by natural selection acting on random variation.
22%
Flag icon
As Darwin often used it, the term natural selection really meant natural selection acting on random variation
22%
Flag icon
It’s strange but true that to a very large degree Charles Darwin insisted the variation that fed natural selection be completely random not because of any actual scientific evidence it could suffice, but because of the theological argument from evil.
23%
Flag icon
Although they’re necessary, general laws are woefully insufficient to account for very specific, purposeful arrangements of parts.
23%
Flag icon
we recognize design in the purposeful arrangement of parts.
26%
Flag icon
the superefficiency actually traps bacteria in a situation where their genomes can’t grow any bigger—they are allowed just enough to survive.
28%
Flag icon
A computer model of a process is, of course, a mathematical abstraction, not the thing itself, so a perennial danger is that the model doesn’t correctly represent the process—that critical but unappreciated details are left out of consideration—yielding misleading results.
29%
Flag icon
studies of self-organization may shed some light on how life behaves, they say little to nothing about how life arose or developed.
33%
Flag icon
Many organisms do actively shape their environments in striking ways, but there is no reason to suppose that the environment does very much shaping in return.
34%
Flag icon
Natural genetic engineering seems to have a big chicken-and-egg problem—it needs complex systems to make complex systems.
36%
Flag icon
As valuable as they might be in describing necessary conditions for the success of some evolutionary strategies, economic theories are nowhere near sufficient to explain how complex molecular machinery arose.
39%
Flag icon
How can mutations that damage protein function be positively selected in nature?
40%
Flag icon
What amount of change in biological classification might have resulted from such searing selection? Some of the descendants might have differed from the ancestor in its domain of life or formed a new kingdom, or perhaps a novel phylum, class, or order. Yet none of those appeared.
40%
Flag icon
millions of years of selection have left the finches very, very close to where they started.
40%
Flag icon
A surprising but compelling conclusion is that Darwin’s mechanism has been wildly overrated—it is incapable of producing much biological change at all.
41%
Flag icon
the system of biological classification is a human invention. Nature simply is; it cares not at all for our concerns. It is people who construct such things as classification systems to help them comprehend vast amounts of data. Since it is a human invention, it’s easy for errors and ignorance to creep in.
45%
Flag icon
the severe problem for Darwin’s theory of evolution in accounting for biological features that require multiple interacting components was one of the first major scientific arguments advanced against it
45%
Flag icon
the number of organisms you’d have to observe to get statistically significant evolutionary results is so enormous that no university animal facility or agricultural station could hold them all.
52%
Flag icon
If research clearly shows that the effects of natural selection and random mutation are limited, why do so many smart scientists still hold that Darwinism is the major force behind the development of life?
63%
Flag icon
The more uncertain the starting assumptions and the longer the term it tries to account for, the less reliable the model. Those caveats should be kept in mind for all computer studies of evolution.
64%
Flag icon
The claim that Darwin’s theory explains life is like the claim that an illiterate who doesn’t know that u follows q authored Romeo and Juliet.
66%
Flag icon
Where Darwinian processes dominate, the biological landscape would be expected to be littered with broken but helpful genes, damaged yet beneficial systems, and degraded organisms on crutches ages before any fancy machinery was even available.
66%
Flag icon
From the dawn of life to the present, beneficial degradation has been a constant background—there’s no way to avoid
68%
Flag icon
the data recounted in this book show, random mutation and natural selection are powerless to build anything remotely as complex as a brain,
70%
Flag icon
random mutation and natural selection can’t accomplish anything remotely like what has been ascribed to them.
70%
Flag icon
If it weren’t for mathematical reasoning, modern science wouldn’t be possible.
71%
Flag icon
Any version of materialism undermines common sense. And “common sense” includes the notions that you have a real mind and can reason and make choices. If materialism is true—if all that exists is the matter and energy studied in ordinary physics classes—then there is no such thing as a real mind.
72%
Flag icon
Darwin’s mechanism can’t begin to make a comparatively simple bacterial flagellum, let alone the human brain. Thus all of the intellectual work built on that vaporous foundation falls with it.
73%
Flag icon
I have no answer to the problem of how the mind affects the body or the reverse, but denying your mind because you can’t solve a problem is like cutting off your head to cure a headache.
74%
Flag icon
Contrary to Richard Dawkins, the ability to reason is indeed the greatest possible power of life. The only greater gift would be the ability to reason better.
74%
Flag icon
Science and purpose were made for each other.
76%
Flag icon
not only is the flagellum itself irreducible, but so is its assembly system. The assembly process and the flagellum together constitute irreducible complexity piled on irreducible complexity.
79%
Flag icon
although sequence similarities are good evidence for common descent, they cannot show whether random mutation and natural selection could build even the simplest system or, given that simple system, whether it could be expanded or improved by Darwin’s mechanism.
80%
Flag icon
Evidence of common descent is routinely confused for evidence of Darwin’s mechanism.