No. of Recommendations: 2
Seeing this getting passed around among creationists I know. Not the paper of course, but Christian commentary on it, like this:
Dear pastors: It's OK to defend the creation account. Science just gave you permission
https://www.christianpost.com/voices/dear-pastors-...Science didn't give them permission, of course.
Paper abstract:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35439500/Darwinian evolution is a nineteenth century descriptive concept that itself has evolved. Selection by survival of the fittest was a captivating idea. Microevolution was biologically and empirically verified by discovery of mutations. There has been limited progress to the modern synthesis. The central focus of this perspective is to provide evidence to document that selection based on survival of the fittest is insufficient for other than microevolution. Realistic probability calculations based on probabilities associated with microevolution are presented. However, macroevolution (required for all speciation events and the complexifications appearing in the Cambrian explosion) are shown to be probabilistically highly implausible (on the order of 10-50) when based on selection by survival of the fittest. We conclude that macroevolution via survival of the fittest is not salvageable by arguments for random genetic drift and other proposed mechanisms. Evolutionary biology is relevant to cancer mechanisms with significance beyond academics. We challenge evolutionary biology to advance boldly beyond the inadequacies of the modern synthesis toward a unifying theory modeled after the Grand Unified Theory in physics. This should include the possibility of a fifth force in nature. Mathematics should be rigorously applied to current and future evolutionary empirical discoveries. We present justification that molecular biology and biochemistry must evolve to aeon (life) chemistry that acknowledges the uniqueness of enzymes for life. To evolve, biological evolution must face the known deficiencies, especially the limitations of the concept survival of the fittest, and seek solutions in Eigen's concept of self-organization, Schrödinger's negentropy, and novel approaches.
No. of Recommendations: 2
It's a variation of the same fallacy (on the part of creationists): science is uncertain, therefore god did it.
The Abrahamic creation story is DOA. We know that beyond any doubt. That doesn't mean we know everything about speciation.
It will be interesting to see reactions as other scientists pick it apart.
No. of Recommendations: 1
It's a variation of the same fallacy (on the part of creationists): science is uncertain, therefore god did it.
Yep, God of the gaps. I thought about writing a pleasantly worded rebuttal, but meh, what's the point?
Creationism is very far down the list of concerns right now. The Christian version of the Taliban are getting stronger and stronger, it seems.
Totally off topic: how's the ID.4? I heard they had some software issues with the early ones. Fixed now?
We're in the market for a new EV. Keeping the Bolt - it's been v. good - handing down to the kid, will need another.
Not excited about supporting or being seen to be supporting Musk and his authoritarian dreams.
