What are the implications of the book Science & Human Origins for the Darwinian paradigm

What are the implications of the book Science & Human Origins for the Darwinian paradigm? Co-author Dr. Douglas Axe answers.

Douglas Axe is Director of Biologic Institute and received his Ph.D. from Caltech. He previously held postdoctoral and research scientist positions at Cambridge University and the Barbraham Institute in Cambridge. He is a co-author of Science & Human Origins.

In Science & Human Origins three scientists challenge the claim that undirected natural selection is capable of building a human being. The authors critically assess fossil and genetic evidence that human beings share a common ancestor with apes, and debunk recent claims that the human race could not have started from an original couple.

[MsBebezote]

doug is very correct here.... in a simple example, look at the current work how the PTH 34 mer peptide...agonist for the PTHr1 receptor...induces internalization..and continued function intracellular...including camp, pkc, pka induction for extended periods...while the same agonist (not identical sequence)...peptide PTHrp 34 mer... induces only surface changes to the temporary receptor structure.... the problem with 99.9999 percent of the people on your tube and in the medical community is that they have little understanding of the true complexity...  i met a dermatologist  boarded in GP also...who did not know what "apoptosis" people.... i beg you to at least try to grasp the concepts with  i'd love to sit with dawkins for 30 minutes and speak about receptor internalization, re-insertion, binding rates, affinity, and peptide dimerization inducing 2 receptors into crossover agonism and antagonism and if he makes it through the first 10 minutes i'd take my hat off to him....   kk, ms, phd, phd

[bryanttillman]

Don't you guys find it odd that we are on an DI page...that has an OPEN comments function??

[CalebDiT]

You may be hitting "next" presumptively, THP. I don't believe genetic mutation is a valid mechanism for speciation. The digital code of the DNA is not accounted for in mutation.

[websnarf]

That is to say, the theory of evolution does not claim their are no differences, and in fact supports the idea that there are differences. But finding differences on its own has absolutely no implication for the theory of evolution.

This so called "Doctor" should turn in any science degree he has earned as he clearly doesn't understand the really rudimentary basics of science.

[raisentimpa]

Exactly, but explain that to hardore atheists who are willing to leave their common sense aside when looking at evidence that suggests design. It's almost pathetic how they lose their reasoning abilities when confronted with ID.

[raisentimpa]

That doesn't work if your "peers" are biased methodological naturalists who don't care about the merits of a theory that has metaphysical implications, even if the theory is better than current models based on word pictures. That's modern science, unfortunately, willing to sweep evidence under rug if it's not convinient for naturalism.

[websnarf]

Exceeding weak dichotomous thinking.

The *similarities* in genetics work like this: You have 3 organisms, A, B, C. You pick gene sequences in their genomes and see that A is closer to B than C. Lets denote this (A≝B)≠C. Then you can check any other sequences to see if this holds. If nested hierarchy is untrue then you should find either (C≝B)≠A or (A≝C)≠B a significant amount of time. This makes common ancestry a falsifiable claim.

This has never been found, and yes people have looked.

[Allmenstein]

google "shutterstock 70900591" and check out if something familiar pops up