Cell Development, Darwin Math-Checked

How Cells Got Their Membranes (Maybe)

SciShow – Aug 16, 2019 – 7:24
For life to evolve on Earth, a bunch of complex organic molecules had to evolve a way to assemble into cells. So how did those proto-cells get cell membranes? Some researchers have a new hunch. Also, scientists are borrowing a trick from cheap laxatives to improve energy storage in supercapacitors. Hosted by: Hank Green


Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

h/t The News Junkie down on Maggie’s Farm, who says, “Always a treat to listen to very high IQ people talk. This is a Wow of a conversation. It’s not about Creationism, but about  Darwin’s likely errors (he didn’t have the info we have now).  The discussion about the emergence of new proteins is especially interesting.”

HooverInstitution – Published on Jul 22, 2019 – 57:14
Recorded on June 6, 2019 in Italy.
Based on new evidence and knowledge that functioning proteins are extremely rare, should Darwin’s theory of evolution be dismissed, dissected, developed or replaced with a theory of intelligent design?

Has Darwinism really failed? Peter Robinson discusses it with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer, who have raised doubts about Darwin’s theory…

Has Darwinism really failed? Peter Robinson discusses it with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer, who have raised doubts about Darwin’s theory in their two books and essay, respectively The Deniable Darwin, Darwin’s Doubt, and “Giving Up Darwin” (published in the Claremont Review of Books).

Robinson asks them to convince him that the term “species” has not been defined by the authors to Darwin’s disadvantage. Gelernter replies to this and explains, as he expressed in his essay, that he sees Darwin’s theory as beautiful (which made it difficult for him to give it up): “Beauty is often a telltale sign of truth. Beauty is our guide to the intellectual universe—walking beside us through the uncharted wilderness, pointing us in the right direction, keeping us on track—most of the time.” Gelernter notes that there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether Darwin can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. Meyer explains Darwinism as a comprehensive synthesis, which gained popularity for its appeal. Meyer also mentions that one cannot disregard that Darwin’s book was based on the facts present in the 19th century.


Related later post:
Faith, Atheism, and Science
Dr. Frank Turek Talks Faith & Atheism with Will Witt
David Berlinski—Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions