The Altenberg 16 -- Redefining Evolution -- Again

[Richard 1]

Sorry if this has been discussed. I didn't see it in any recent topics.

 

For those unaware, the Altenberg 16 is the name given to 16 prominent evolutionary scientists who met this year in Altenberg, Austria at the Konrad Lorenz Institute. Their modest goal? To redefine evolution.

 

I became fascinated when I stumbled across this. A science reporter -- Susan Mazur -- got wind of it and began interviewing attendees. Her work became several articles and a book. Here is a link to a radio interview she recently gave.

 

Susan Mazur Radio Inteview

 

This interview from last December, was the first time I became aware of Susan Mazur and the Altenberg 16. I have since read most of her book which she has made available online.

 

THE ALTENBERG 16 Will the Real Theory of Evolution Please Stand Up?

 

It appears Mazur was given unprecedented access to these scientist until it became apparent that her work was making Dawinism look bad in that it was revealing how little evolutionists really know about evolution. What has now come out is that, in spite of all the "evolution is a fact," bluster, evolution as a theory, is in complete disarray.

[Adam Nagy 50]

Sorry if this has been discussed. I didn't see it in any recent topics.

23112[/snapback]

Hi Richard,

 

Wow! You are one quiet member. You are one of the originals. I feel honored to be the first to respond to someone who hasn't spoken since April 22nd 2005!

 

I went on to googlevideo and found more stuff pertaining to this issue. Would you like me to post some of it? Thanks for bringing it up. This is the first time I've heard of it.

 

Adam

[Adam Nagy 50]

Hi Richard,

 

I'm going to go ahead and add this video in:

 

[Richard 1]

Hi Richard,

 

Wow! You are one quiet member.  You are one of the originals. I feel honored to be the first to respond to someone who hasn't spoken since April 22nd 2005!

 

I went on to googlevideo and found more stuff pertaining to this issue. Would you like me to post some of it? Thanks for bringing it up. This is the first time I've heard of it.

 

Adam

23114[/snapback]

Hi Adam. I've been following the debate as a layman for about 30 years, but when I found Fred's site years ago, I really didn't think there was much I could add to the discussion here. It was the first time I had come across the discussion about Haldane's Dilemma and mutation rates and that sort of thing and while I understood the concepts, the terms were unfamiliar and the math was a little over my head.

 

I always enjoyed reading the posts here and have since read most of the debates and articles and have been trying to get up to speed on the genetics. I used to post often over on CARM, but a couple of years ago, got a little burned out with the vitriol from the Darwinists over there.

 

I never lost interest in the issue and recently decided to start posting again after I retired last year. Unfortunately, I couldn't remember my username and password over here, so I wrote Fred an email. He was kind enough to get me back on here. After posting over on CARM, I really appreciate the moderation here.

 

Anyway, I'm glad to be back over here and by all means please post any information you have on the Altenberg 16. I know they're going crazy over on Panda's Thumb over some of the things Mazur has brought out about the current state of evolutionary thinking.

 

Thanks for welcoming me back.

[Adam Nagy 50]

I never lost interest in the issue and recently decided to start posting again after I retired last year. Unfortunately, I couldn't remember my username and password over here, so I wrote Fred an email. He was kind enough to get me back on here. After posting over on CARM, I really appreciate the moderation here.

23132[/snapback]

I like the moderation here too, though sometimes I push the envelope with the sarcasm. I receive and respect the hand slaps and am learning to be a good citizen.

 

So what's the deal? What are some of the key points the Altenberg 16 came up with? What should we be looking out for now?

[Richard 1]

I like the moderation here too, though sometimes I push the envelope with the sarcasm. I receive and respect the hand slaps and am learning to be a good citizen.

 

So what's the deal? What are some of the key points the Altenberg 16 came up with? What should we be looking out for now?

23135[/snapback]

I'm still trying to figure it out, but the best I can tell is that they are chucking neo-darwinism (incremental improvement over time caused by mutations and natural selection) in favor of something they call "Self Organization."

 

The mechanism for SO appears to be centered around the chemical and physical properties of cells rather than their genetic properties. They say that natural selection acts only after the form has taken its shape and only as a stabilizer and not a builder.

 

Here's what Massimo Pigliucci who was the facilitator of the Altenberg 16 said in an interview with Susan Mazur:

 

"What you’re drinking now – water. Now we know that water is made of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen. And yet the physical and chemical properties of water – the temperature at which it’s going to freeze, the density that it has at certain temperatures and so on – cannot be derived directly from the knowledge of the physical and chemical properties of hydrogen and oxygen. In other words, water is an emergent property of a specific combination of hydrogen and oxygen.

 

The emergent properties are due to the fact that these atoms are not just mixed together in a two to one proportion. They’re actually connected in molecules that have a particular shape. And it is that shape that is determined by the chemical bonds that in turn determine the physical and chemical properties. Emergence is a big component of self-organization. It’s fundamental. It’s very important. We don’t even understand things like water."

 

If you've listened to the video you posted above, you'll hear Stuart Newman say towards the end that incremental evolution simply did not take place, and science should quit teaching that because it isn't believable and is thus undermining the acceptance of evolution. This appears to be an attempt to find a solution to myriad of problems neo-darwinism has even among evolutionary biologists.

 

The bottom line is that Neo-Darwinism is now considered inadequate to explain evolution. This reminds me of what happened when Gould/Eldredge studied the fossil record and came face to face with stasis or non-evolution. The only choice was to invent a theory that incorporated the lack of transitional forms, so they came up with Punctuated Equilibrium, or as I refer to it -- the poof theory. There's no evolution for hundreds of millions of years then poof --evolution happened so fast it didn't leave any evidence.

 

Of course, creationists see this as just explaining away the lack of evidence. This strikes me as the same kind of thing.

 

The final report will come out sometime this year and will be more definitive, but I would be grateful if others with more scientific knowlege than me would take a look at this material and give a better explanation of what the Altenberg 16 are saying.

[Adam Nagy 50]

The emergent properties are due to the fact that these atoms are not just mixed together in a two to one proportion. They’re actually connected in molecules that have a particular shape. And it is that shape that is determined by the chemical bonds that in turn determine the physical and chemical properties. Emergence is a big component of self-organization. It’s fundamental. It’s very important. We don’t even understand things like water."

23146[/snapback]

Look at these Chemicals Self-Assemble!

 

Mitosis in real time:

m73i1Zk8EA0

 

Look at those Chemicals do what Chemicals do

 

I watched that video about 20 times. Each time I watched it I realized what an awesome God we serve.

 

Hey, Richard, you've been following this controversy for thirty years and you're still a creationist? What's the matter with you?

 

The more I look at the controversy, the more I look back and realize that; that snot nosed 19 year old (me) put his faith right in the right place, even without perfect knowledge. I praise Jesus everyday that his magnificence is only a microscope or telescope away. Actually, you don't even need the microscope or telescope.

 

Do you have your testimony out there anywhere? If not, you ought to consider sharing it and be specific about how you watched this whole debate take shape. Like when did you see the first creationist start cutting through the smoke and mirrors of Darwinism successfully? Were you paying attention when Walt Brown and Duane Gish first started making an impact? Who else am I missing?

 

I hope I'm not being pushy. It's just when someone has years of having their ear to the ground I feel it's my duty to pry their experience out of them.

 

Adam

[Adam Nagy 50]

Yeah, Stewart Newman, as nice as he was in that video really revealed the undertones of protecting evolution at all cost. Naturalism is a huge mental road block.

 

"I can just see inquisitive kids going into high-school who love God and are fascinated with science going into a classroom to get indoctrinated in evolution."

 

They have two choices (with the third one brushed under the rug)

 

1. Reject God and buy evolution like a good atheist (Richard Dawkins)

2. Make a mental partition; naturalism on the science side and god on the other and never the two shall meet (like Ken Miller)

 

The super secret "We can't tell you about this one because it violates the separation of church and state. " option number three:

 

3. Reject Evolution

 

"Oh, no! Harumph! Harumph! We can't do that! Evolution is presupposed... oops ...ah... I mean... IT'S PROVEN!"

 

It's really sad but on the other hand it is a great joy seeing some one flip the mental light switch and declare: "You mean all of science and all of the Bible fit? All I have to do is look closely at the evidence and it's interpretation? Wow?"

 

I've been honored with this experience a few times personally and I look forward to many many more...

 

Adam

[jason777 1]

I remember reading an article about a Chinese scientists at a meeting, proposed that life shared numerous common ancestors during the cambrian.He was shocked that all the scientists from the U.S. were only there to worship Darwin and rejected any evidence or hypothysis that he put forth.Most prominent paleoentologists will tell anyone that Darwins predictions were wrong.

 

Darwinian Dogma is the only thing accepted in the U.S.,I'll be watching to see their response to The Altenberg 16.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks.

[Adam Nagy 50]

I remember reading an article about a Chinese scientists at a meeting, proposed that life shared numerous common ancestors during the cambrian.

23197[/snapback]

Hey, Jason, are you talking about the same Chinese scientist who is interviewed in "Icons of Evolution"? I thought that part was interesting. That the data shows that Darwin's tree of life is upside-down to the evidence (like it's backwards to everything else it purports to use as evidence). Basically, that the diversity of life seems to be consistently diminishing according to all the historical, fossil and contemporary data and not diversifying. Interesting stuff.

 

Adam

[jason777 1]

Hi Adam,

 

Hey, Jason, are you talking about the same Chinese scientist who is interviewed in "Icons of Evolution"? I thought that part was interesting. That the data shows that Darwin's tree of life is upside-down to the evidence (like it's backwards to everything else it purports to use as evidence). Basically, that the diversity of life seems to be consistently diminishing according to all the historical, fossil and contemporary data and not diversifying. Interesting stuff.

I saw that video and it was actually a different chinese scientist ( I think his last name was Chien. )

 

Look at it this way;

 

The fossil record goes from a single cell to 50+ phyla in just 5 million years.Scientists use to claim 100 phyla present,but they have since consolodated as many as they could and have agreed on 50+.In contrast there are only 38 living phyla today.

 

In China,they have also found a cambrian nautilus,520 mya.

 

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/F...lopoda/fossil...

 

The nautilus is a member of the family "Cephlapoda" and is without a doubt the most intelligent and complex marine family.Only marine mammals are more intelligent.I'm not aware of any squid or octopus being found in the cambrian yet,but the nautilus is in the same family.

 

The Chinese scientists know that is fatal to universal common descent.Most of them still beleive in evolution,but they are suggesting that they must have evolved from numerous common ancestors.Scientists in the U.S. wont accept it,because they will have to admit it's a philosohical beleif and not a science.

 

 

 

 

Enjoy.

[Richard 1]

Hi Adam,

I saw that video and it was actually a different chinese scientist ( I think his last name was Chien. )

 

Look at it this way;

 

The fossil record goes from a single cell to 50+ phyla in just 5 million years.Scientists use to claim 100 phyla present,but they have since consolodated as many as they could and have agreed on 50+.In contrast there are only 38 living phyla today.

 

In China,they have also found a cambrian nautilus,520 mya.

 

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/F...lopoda/fossil...

 

The nautilus is a member of the family "Cephlapoda" and is without a doubt the most intelligent and complex marine family.Only marine mammals are more intelligent.I'm not aware of any squid or octopus being found in the cambrian yet,but the nautilus is in the same family.

 

The Chinese scientists know that is fatal to universal common descent.Most of them still beleive in evolution,but they are suggesting that they must have evolved from numerous common ancestors.Scientists in the U.S. wont accept it,because they will have to admit it's a philosohical beleif and not a science.

Enjoy.

23199[/snapback]

 

That's fascinating stuff, jason.