David Gelernter, a famed Yale University professor, has publicly renounced his belief in Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, calling it a “beautiful idea” that has been effectively disproven.
Another Professor Renounces Darwinism
by Sea Breeze 32 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
cofty
A prof of computer science.
His opinion of biology is as valid as his opinion on politics.
Apparently he is impressed by the ramblings of Stephen Meyer - how embarrassing!
-
Sea Breeze
I think much of Darwinian logic relies upon coding which it seems a professor of computer science would be qualified to comment upon.
What do you think of his statement:"all of which has shown random mutation plus natural selection cannot generate new and complex creatures. By the numbers, it’s impossible", the computer scientist points out.
He gives an anecdote on how hard it would be to create just one new protein by chance — "the odds are so astronomical that there are fewer atoms in the entire universe in comparison: “The odds bury you. It can’t be done.”
-
sir82
Alternate headline: A computer science professor expounds on a topic far, far, far away from his area of expertise.
I wonder what Yale's "famed" Professor of English Literature thinks about whether Mochizuki has solved the abc conjecture?
-
cofty
I think much of Darwinian logic relies upon coding
There is really no comparison beyond a bad analogy between computer coding and DNA.
all of which has shown random mutation plus natural selection cannot generate new and complex creatures.
That is nothing but a bald assertion. Only somebody who doesn't understand the basics or who has ideological religious motivations could say it.
Evolution explains how an original complex creature gave rise to many other sorts of complex creatures. It explains this in astonishing detail.
It does not explain how geochemistry became biochemistry. That is a whole different ball game.
He gives an anecdote on how hard it would be to create just one new protein by chance
Evolution has nothing at all to do with the origins of protein molecules. When people make this sort of objection to evolution you know that they have no interest in actual answers to real questions.
All of the ideas of the Intelligent Design movement have been thoroughly destroyed by actual scientists. It is nothing but good old fashioned creationism in a new disguise trying to get around the First Amendment.
-
-
cofty
He gives an anecdote on how hard it would be to create just one new protein by chance
His anecdote ignores protein functional redundancy. The key thing about a protein molecule is its physical shape which results from the sequence of amino acids which results in turn from the sequence of nucleic acids.
The thing is there are many many possible sequences that result in an identical molecule. Taking just one example of Cytochrome C. The number of possible amino acid sequences that would result in a functional Cytochrome C protein molecule has been calculated to be a billion times larger than all the atoms in the known universe. And each one of those amino acid sequences could be built from vast numbers of alternative sequences of nucleic acids.
All of these billions of billions of possible sequences results in a perfectly functional cytochrome C molecule.
Now consider all the orders of magnitude of other possible sequences that would result in a cytochrome C molecule that works a little bit less efficiently than those we find in extant species.
His argument is like somebody looking around a stadium of 100,000 people and asking what are the odds of these exact people being right here, each in their exact seat at this precise moment. They forget that countless other contingencies would have also resulted in a full stadium.
Prof Gelernter to needs to stick to computers.
-
LV101
Thx, Cofty, for the continuing education classes/refreshment courses -- again and again. Some of us (like myself) are good at ordering the recommended books off your list but not too good at reading/studying. Your posts help.
-
Hairtrigger
What is astonishing is the number of dislikes after arguments for anti-evolution have been put in the trash basket. Wonder what the dislikes are really for ! That you have lost the half baked arguments you came with, or just plain prejudice against the real facts! If one has a real fact based argument that negates Evolution then put it up. Otherwise, stop being a JW and hitting those negative buttons.I refer to the JW habit of running from an argument saying” we don’t want to argue..”! What they mean is they don’t have facts to bring to a real debate. About the same modus operandi about sums up those hitting the dislikes so often!
By the way go ahead and hit the dislike on this one as much as you like. Make sure the skin on your fingers don’t wear out!
-
Vidiot
When I read the thread title, the first thing I thought was,"betcha he's not a biologist".