Exodus5:2ASV"And Pharaoh said, Who( Not what) is JEHOVAH...?"
Can any trinitarian give us a straight answer to Pharaoh's querie?
Monday, 19 December 2022
Darwinism's failure as a predictive model.XVII
Darwinism's predictions
Cornelius G Hunter
Just as evolution predicts that gene trees and species trees should be congruent, it also predicts that different gene trees should be congruent. In 1982 David Penny and co-workers tested this prediction. They wrote that “The theory of evolution predicts that similar phylogenetic trees should be obtained from different sets of character data.” Their character data came from five different proteins and they concluded “there is strong support from these five sequences for the theory of evolution.” (Penny, Foulds and Hendy) But in later years, as more genetic data became available, it was clear that different genes led to very different evolutionary trees. As one study explained, the sequences of genes, “often disagree and can seldom be proven to agree.” (Doolittle and Bapteste) It is now well understood that “Gene and genome trees conflict at many levels” (Haggerty, et. al.) and that “Incongruence between gene trees is the main challenge faced by phylogeneticists in the genomic era.” (Galtier and Daubin) For evolutionists this failed prediction will require more complicated models of evolutionary history. As Penny now writes, he is “not rejecting the tree per se but enriching the tree concept into a network.” (Penny)
References
Doolittle, W., E. Bapteste. 2007. “Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:2043-2049.
Galtier, N., V. Daubin. 2008. “Dealing with incongruence in phylogenomic analyses.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363:4023-4029.
Haggerty, L., et. al. 2009. “Gene and genome trees conflict at many levels.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364:2209-2219.
Penny, D. 2011. “Darwin’s Theory of Descent with Modification, versus the Biblical Tree of Life.” PLoS Biol 9:e1001096.
Penny, D., L. Foulds, M. Hendy. 1982. “Testing the theory of evolution by comparing phylogenetic trees constructed from five different protein sequences.” Nature 297:197-200.
Hope has fallen?
Bioethicist: Having Children Is Bad
Wesley J. Smith
This is the world of bioethics, the “experts” whom we are supposed to trust to guide public policy on a range of issues, from medical policy to environmental law.
We should not listen to a word the mainstreamers have to say — as this article telling us not to have children makes clear. From “Science Proves Kids are Bad for the Earth,” by Travis Reider, published at NBC Think:
A startling and honestly distressing view is beginning to receive serious consideration in both academic and popular discussions of climate change ethics. According to this view, having a child is a major contributor to climate change. The logical takeaway here is that everyone on Earth ought to consider having fewer children.
The Chinese Model
Talk about shades of China family-planning theory. We must destroy much of what makes life worth living in order save the planet!
The argument that having a child adds to one’s carbon footprint depends on the view that each of us has a personal carbon ledger for which we are responsible. Furthermore, some amount of an offspring’s emissions count towards the parents’ ledger.
Whatcrap. We do not have to feel guilty for being alive. Moreover, children bring great joy into the world. They are the posterity to whom the future will belong and depend. They are the hope of the world, not environmental disasters.
The Most Important Endeavor
If I release a murderer from prison, knowing full well that he intends to kill innocent people, then I bear some responsibility for those deaths — even though the killer is also fully responsible. My having released him doesn’t make him less responsible (he did it!). But his doing it doesn’t eliminate my responsibility either.
Something similar is true, I think, when it comes to having children: Once my daughter is an autonomous agent, she will be responsible for her emissions. But that doesn’t negate my responsibility. Moral responsibility simply isn’t mathematical. . . .
Having a child imposes high emissions on the world, while the parents get the benefit. So like with any high-cost luxury, we should limit our indulgence.
No. Choosing to bring new life is not an environmental wrong. It is the best that life has to offer.
This is why I call it global-warming hysteria. And it’s an example of why I think most bioethics discourse pushes us away from policies and actions that make for a healthy and vibrant society.
Ps. Luke23:29NIV"For the time will come when you will say, ‘Blessed are the childless women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’"
For the record I believe that both the author and the mainstream bioethicists he vehemently opposes mean well but they both attacking the symptoms and not the disease.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)