Faith vs Facts – Craig Venter

Initially, I have been planning to do an OP on the amazing abilities of plants to “resolve the mathematical equations” in quantum photosynthesis…However, since another issue was raised in one of the last OPs, I’d thought it would be a great opportunity to keep the flow of the same theme going…

In the OP “On variant genetic codes”  the author has presented his case that Craig Venter’s doubt for common descent based solely on the genetic code variants (back in 2011 there were 18 of them) is not enough to doubt common descent…
Based on the discussion that took place at the University of Arizona back in 2011, do you get the impression that Craig Venter’s doubt for common descent is based solely on the fact that there are genetic code variants? I don’t … but you’d judge it for yourself:

For those who have been following at least a few of the experimental scientists like Venter know that the genetic code variations in life forms is just the tip of the iceberg that makes one like Venter doubt not only common descent but Darwinism first and foremost…

To put simply, in Venter’s attempts to re-create some of the “simpler” life forms by sequencing and digitizing their genomes, knocking out the genes that ‘may not be essential’, one by one, and re-creating “synthetic genomes” to be put back in the living cell… the idea of common ancestor and Darwinian mechanism of evolution simply does’t add up…

Why?

By playing this game, Venter and his team have realized that differences among even the “simplest” of life forms are so staggering that they could not have had a common ancestor… In the video, Venter refers to an organism that lives in’ Ph 12 base that would dissolve Davies skin…’ Therefore he knows that the tree of life is an artifact pushed by Darwinists with no evidence for it… If one follows many of Venter’s public statements, his doubt of common descent can be summarized by this:

” …One question is, can we extrapolate back from this data set to describe the most recent common ancestor. I don’t necessarily buy that there is a single ancestor. It’s counterintuitive to me. I think we may have thousands of recent common ancestors and they are not necessarily so common…”

Venter’s counterintuition toward common descent comes from his experimental evidence which is different than speculations about what natural selection can do:

“If it is not impssible, than natural selection (natural process) did it…”

This belief represents that great faith that many Darwinists have in common descent pictured as a tree of life and the creative evolutionary mechanisms…

Venter, and a few scientists like him, challenged this faith by experiments by the attempts to reconstruct some of the supposed evolutionary processes… Darwinism and common descent have not withstand those experimental tests and have to be rejected…

” VENTER: Maybe I come at this as a basic experimentalist — the theory behind theory is that you come up with truly testable ideas. Otherwise it’s no different than faith. It might as well be a religion if there’s no evidence for it. So how do you get it past your religion phase? ” here

These are the facts…
How do you get it past religion or faith in common descent and Darwinism? You move past the unfounded speculations and provide testable ideas… Can Darwinist deliver?

Over the next few OPs, I hope to present some of those facts and both shed serious doubt on common descent and Darwinism…

64 Replies to “Faith vs Facts – Craig Venter”

  1. Acartia Acartia
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: In my own words, you built a strawan, and then in your own words, try to support it? Can you explain it, in your own, but other words, it ain’t so…?

    In my own words, you are dodging the logic of my argument. Can you explain how my inference that all biology is non-living is any different than the ID inference that all IC is the result of an intelligent agent? They both use the exact same evidence.

  2. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Acartia: Other people’s words often trigger thoughts in my mind. That doesn’t happen to you?

    Not particularly…especially if they start out by: “I think” or “honestly”…

  3. Acartia Acartia
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: Not particularly…especially if they start out by: “I think” or “honestly”…

    Your evasion is duly noted.

  4. T_aquaticus
    Ignored
    says:

    “To be sure, much of evolution has been tree-like and is captured in hierarchical classifications. Although plant speciation is often effected by reticulation (80) and radical primary and secondary symbioses lie at the base of the eukaryotes and several groups within them (81, 82), it would be perverse to claim that Darwin’s TOL hypothesis has been falsified for animals (the taxon to which he primarily addressed himself) or that it is not an appropriate model for many taxa at many levels of analysis. ”
    “Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis”, W. Ford Doolittle and Eric Bapteste, 2007

  5. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: Then I realized that nobody can replicate the fundamental steps of evolution

    Nobody can replicate plate tectonics, and yet we understand the continents move.

    Out of interest, a square meter of soil defeated Behe in a court case. You seem to show a similar level of understanding to that which Behe showed that day.

  6. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain,
    I wonder what goes on in the middle of stars. Only one way to find out – to the laboratory!

  7. T_aquaticus
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac:Then I looked at evidence… Then I realized that nobody can replicate the fundamental steps of evolution … not even close to endosymbiosis…

    If you understood the scientific method you would already know that you don’t replicate hypotheses and theories. That’s not how the scientific method works.

  8. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    T_aquaticus:
    “To be sure, much of evolution has been tree-like and is captured in hierarchical classifications. Although plant speciation is often effected by reticulation (80) and radical primary and secondary symbioses lie at the base of the eukaryotes and several groups within them (81, 82), it would be perverse to claim that Darwin’s TOL hypothesis has been falsified for animals (the taxon to which he primarily addressed himself) or that it is not an appropriate model for many taxa at many levels of analysis. ”
    “Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis”, W. Ford Doolittle and Eric Bapteste, 2007

    “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,” Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, told New Scientist magazine.

    Genetic tests on bacteria, plants and animals increasingly reveal that different species crossbreed more than originally thought, meaning that instead of genes simply being passed down individual branches of the tree of life, they are also transferred between species on different evolutionary paths. The result is a messier and more tangled “web of life”.

    Microbes swap genetic material so promiscuously it can be hard to tell one type from another, but animals regularly crossbreed too – as do plants – and the offspring can be fertile. According to some estimates, 10 per cent of animals regularly form hybrids by breeding with other species.

    Last year, scientists at the University of Texas at Arlington found a strange chunk of DNA in the genetic make-up of eight animals, including the mouse, rat and the African clawed frog. The same chunk is missing from chickens, elephants and humans, suggesting it must have become wedged into the genomes of some animals by crossbreeding.

    The findings mean that to link species by Darwin’s evolutionary branches is an oversimplification. “The tree of life is being politely buried,” said Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine. “What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/jan/21/charles-darwin-evolution-species-tree-life

    Is this the same Eric Bapteste? Or has he been beptested as a creationist since the article you quoted?

  9. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    T_aquaticus: If you understood the scientific method you would already know that you don’t replicate hypotheses and theories.That’s not how the scientific method works.

    Excuse me?!
    Does anybody need any further proof for Darwinism and common descent?
    Any questions for our well informed friend?
    Why didn’t you say so the first time you joined TSZ? You would’ve saved us a lot of time…After this overwhelming evidence I pack my bags and look for a place underground to hide…

  10. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain: Nobody can replicate plate tectonics, and yet we understand the continents move.

    Out of interest, a square meter of soil defeated Behe in a court case. You seem to show a similar level of understanding to that which Behe showed that day.

    After this, DI must be packing their bags…What else could they do against such an argument ?

  11. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Acartia: Your evasion is duly noted.

    Are you sure you didn’t get ID mixed up IC or CI? How about DI?

  12. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Acartia: But let’s take it to the next level.

    Next level of what, inanity?

    Your conclusion doesn’t follow. Your argument is a non-sequitur.

  13. T_aquaticus
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,” Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, told New Scientist magazine.

    That very same person also authored the quote I gave you which clearly states that much of evolution is captured in the tree of life. I really don’t see how horizontal genetic transfer falsifies evolution. Perhaps you could explain that to us.

  14. T_aquaticus
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: Excuse me?!
    Does anybody need any further proof for Darwinism and common descent?
    Any questions for our well informed friend?
    Why didn’t you say so the first time you joined TSZ? You would’ve saved us a lot of time…After this overwhelming evidence I pack my bags and look for a place underground to hide…

    With each post you further demonstrate that you don’t know how the scientific method works. You don’t replicate the hypothesis. You replicate experiments and observations. Hypotheses are not observations. Common descent and evolution are the hypotheses. We test these hypotheses with what we do observe.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.