Absurd and Pathetic
As Thomas Kuhn pointed out, science sometimes operates in paradigms. Scientific research on a particular problem can embrace a type of solution, or paradigm. The research tries to elaborate on and refine the paradigm, but otherwise does not question the paradigm. Paradigms provide a stable framework, within which concepts and terminology can be developed to support scientific thinking.
But because the paradigm is taken for granted and assumed from the start, the research conclusions do not generally confirm or prove the paradigm. The research work develops and critically examines concepts within the paradigm, but not the paradigm itself. Kuhn called the research work done with a paradigm normal science.
Evolutionary theory very much works this way. Normal science, within the evolution paradigm, takes it for granted that the world evolved—that everything arose from strictly naturalistic, chance events. That is, that the world arose spontaneously. Therefore in evolutionary research, the evidence is interpreted according to evolution. You could say the evidence is theory-laden.
A typical evolutionary research study goes as follows: Given that X evolved, here is how X probably evolved. All of this is at odds with the empirical evidence, and so the results inevitably lack all kinds of detail normally required in science, and include all kinds of improbable events normally unacceptable in science. It is a kind of storytelling underwritten by the paradigm.
This evolutionary normal science formula has produced a tremendous volume of literature, ranging from journal papers to popular works. And, one of the favorite lines of argumentation, when evolution is rightly questioned, is to point to this “mountain” of evidence. A simple internet search can usually be counted on to produce dozens of papers advertising “The Evolution of Echolocation in Bats” or whatever wonder the skeptic has in mind as problematic for evolution.
Of course, if anyone were ever actually to read the produced papers (and usually the evolutionist presenting the paper has not), that person would find a marked absence of any actual scientific description of how echolocation, or whatever, actually did, in fact, evolve.
Normal science is used inappropriately as confirmatory evidence. When we explained, for example, that epigenetics in plants contradicts evolution, an evolutionist caustically responded with a paper subtitled: “The Evolution of a Complex Epigenetic Pathway in Flowering Plants.”
And did that paper actually explain “The Evolution of a Complex Epigenetic Pathway in Flowering Plants”?
No. The paper presupposed “The Evolution of a Complex Epigenetic Pathway in Flowering Plants.” As we explained, the paper presents several dubious “findings” of how epigenetics evolved which, in fact, are not supported by the science and instead are completely beholden to the assumption that evolution is true.
The paper’s highly unlikely scenarios of how evolution occurred are underwritten and mandated by the a priori assumption that (drumroll), evolution occurred.
And when we pointed this out, the evolutionist next retorted:
In the same way NASA and ESA assume the Earth is a globe and not flat every time they launch a satellite into orbit. What were those dumb space scientists and engineers thinking using assumptions??
Which brings us back to Monte Python and the argument skit. There’s always another canard. After inappropriately using normal science as confirmatory evidence, and having the fallacy explained in no uncertain terms, the evolutionist effortlessly switches over to the next available fallacy: riding the coattails of science.
The analogy between the age-old Epicurean claims that the world spontaneously arose, and space flight, is of course absurd and pathetic. It reveals how silly is evolutionary thought. But like the Monte Python skit, evolutionists will always have another argument.
Religion drives science, and it matters.
Darwinian 'science' in a nutshell:
ReplyDeleteJonathan Wells on pop science boilerplate - April 20, 2015
Excerpt: Based on my reading of thousands of Peer-Reviewed Articles in the professional literature, I’ve distilled (the) template for writing scientific articles that deal with evolution:
1. (Presuppose that) Darwinian evolution is a fact.
2. We used [technique(s)] to study [feature(s)] in [name of species], and we unexpectedly found [results inconsistent with Darwinian evolution].
3. We propose [clever speculations], which might explain why the results appear to conflict with evolutionary theory.
4. We conclude that Darwinian evolution is a fact.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/jon-wells-on-pop-science-boilerplate/
"Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical. The possibility that anything is seriously amiss with Darwin's account of evolution is hardly considered. ... The methodological skepticism that characterizes most areas of scientific discourse seems strikingly absent when Darwinism is the topic."
Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini
"In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all."
Marc Kirschner, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005
"While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”
A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to "Evolutionary Processes" - (2000).
Darwinian Evolution is a Unfalsifiable Pseudo-Science - Mathematics – video (2016)
https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1132659110080354/?type=2&theater
The primary reasons why Darwinism is a pseudo-science instead of a proper science are as such:
1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis (Demarcation/Falsification Criteria)
2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis
3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection are both grossly inadequate as ‘creative engines’
4. Information is not reducible to a material basis, (in fact, in quantum mechanics it is found that material ultimately reduces to a information basis)
5. Darwinism hinders scientific progress (i.e. falsely predicted Junk DNA, vestigial organs, etc..),
"Being an evolutionist means never having to say you’re sorry."
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean that Gordon (KairosFocus) Mullings, Barry Arrington, Joe Gallien, Louis (Mapou) Savain and you are closet evolutionists? I have seen arguments by each of you that have been soundly disproven, yet not only does your paradigm not change, but you don't even modify your ID theory to accommodate newly provided evidence. I say "newly provided" because none of the evidence is new, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that it may be new to you.
Soundly disproven? Can you provide an example(s)?
DeleteWell, Gordon Mullings insists that same sex marriage will lead to polygamy, incest and beastiality. Didn't happen.
DeleteJoe G says OOL is impossible because it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. This seems to be a corollary to the equally stupid "evolution is impossible because it violates the 2LoT".
DeleteOf course Joe G also says all the scientific evidence supports Biblical created "kinds". Joe's a veritable fountain of YEC nonsense.
The supposed evidence for evolution is so utterly trivial it cannot be thought of as anything less than irrelevant. Conclusive? Not even remotely close.
Delete"4. Information is not reducible to a material basis, (in fact, in quantum mechanics it is found that material ultimately reduces to a information basis)"
That's the way I see it. The information must come first. Then anything and everything else.
cv5
DeleteThe supposed evidence for evolution is so utterly trivial it cannot be thought of as anything less than irrelevant. Conclusive? Not even remotely close
I'll wager you've never taken any biology, paleontology, genetics, or any life sciences courses in your life and have no idea what the actual evidence for evolution is. Right?
That's the way I see it. The information must come first
What is you definition of information as you are using the term? I'll wager it's not the one mainstream science uses when referring to genotypes.
ghostrider
DeleteI probably have 2000-3000 hrs of my own research into it. Up to PHD thesis level. In my opinion what we know is miniscule compared to what we need to know to arrive at some kind of theory. Same goes for cosmology. We just don't know. And frankly, we may never get there.
By far the most compelling research that I have read was the analysis of the DNA code itself. Compare DNA code to other codes and ID becomes a very strong emergent phenomenon. Now that was some compelling PHD thesis blew my socks off.
Deletecv5
DeleteI probably have 2000-3000 hrs of my own research into it.
So no formal training or experience, just what anti-science drivel you've read from ID-Creationist sites. I suspected as much.
In my opinion what we know is miniscule compared to what we need to know to arrive at some kind of theory.
Why should your uneducated layman's opinion matter to anyone besides you? Pretty much every scientist who actually works in the life science fields and studies the evidence says you're wrong.
ghostrider,
Delete"I'll wager you've never taken any biology, paleontology, genetics, or any life sciences courses in your life and have no idea what the actual evidence for evolution is. Right?"
First. If studying the sciences provides such overwhelming evidence of evolution why do 10s of thousands of qualified scientists reject it?
Second. How does biology, genetics, paleontology, etc., when no presuppositions are applied, provide evidence for evolution?
cv5: "I probably have 2000-3000 hrs of my own research into it."
ghostrider: "So no formal training or experience, just what anti-science drivel you've read from ID-Creationist sites. I suspected as much."
This is purely an assumption on your part, ghostrider. cv5 could indeed have thousands of hours of personal study invested in the subject, and many if not the majority of those hours could have been spent studying the material produced by evolutionists. You assume, simply because he has concluded evolution is nonsense that all he has looked at is anti-evolution material. Why?
Nic
DeleteIf studying the sciences provides such overwhelming evidence of evolution why do 10s of thousands of qualified scientists reject it?
A tiny percentage of scientists in the life science fields (<0.1%) reject the ToE because of their Fundamental religious beliefs. That doesn't magically negate all the positive evidence for evolution over deep time.
How does biology, genetics, paleontology, etc., when no presuppositions are applied, provide evidence for evolution.
We've been over this 100x Nic. Evolution provides a comprehensive, consilient, cross-corroborating explanation for ALL the evidence. Compare that with YEC which cherry picks individual pieces and never comes up with a coherent whole.
This is purely an assumption on your part, ghostrider.
No, I asked him directly and all he said was he had done was his own research. Saying there's no evidence for evolution is as stupid as claiming there's no evidence for heavier-than-air powered flight.
ghostrider,
Delete"A tiny percentage of scientists in the life science fields (<0.1%) reject the ToE because of their Fundamental religious beliefs. That doesn't magically negate all the positive evidence for evolution over deep time."
So you keep saying. However, if there are in the range of 7 million practising scientists in the world that 'tiny' percentage of 0.1% translates into 70,000 scientists who reject evolutionary thought. That may be a small percentage but it is not a small number.
"We've been over this 100x Nic. Evolution provides a comprehensive, consilient, cross-corroborating explanation for ALL the evidence."
Yes, we have been over this 100 times and you still are not catching onto the fact that is true only if you adhere to evolutionary thought to begin with. Those who do not adhere to evolutionary thought see no consilience or cross corroboration, they see contradictions. Evolution is change except when evolution is stasis. Evolution is driven by altruism, except when it's driven by selfishness. Evolution occurs slowly, except when it advances rapidly. Whatever happens is attributed to evolution, so if you a priori believe in evolution of course it is consilient and cross corroborating because it is the only explanation allowed.
"No, I asked him directly and all he said was he had done was his own research. Saying there's no evidence for evolution is as stupid as claiming there's no evidence for heavier-than-air powered flight."
Did you ask him what resources he had used or did you just assume he used only anti-evolution material. Sure there is evidence for evolution, if you presume evolution.
However, what you use as evidence for evolution is also used by creationists and adherents to intelligent design as evidence for their position. Everyone is working with the same evidence, ghostrider. :)
Nic
DeleteSo you keep saying. However, if there are in the range of 7 million practising scientists in the world that 'tiny' percentage of 0.1% translates into 70,000 scientists who reject evolutionary thought. That may be a small percentage but it is not a small number.
Er, you may want to check your math again.
ghostrider,
Delete"Er, you may want to check your math again."
It's the new math. :)
You're right, as usual. ;) I was looking at 0.1% and thinking 1%, which was the claim you made earlier claiming 99% of scientist believe evolution, and that would translate to 70,000 rejecting it.
Now, I guess you're going to revise your number to 99.9% of scientists accept evolution. I guess that's okay, 99% is a ridiculous claim so 99.9% is only slightly more ridiculous. :)
The original number I sited came from a famous 1987 Newsweek poll of scientists that found 95% of all scientists and 99.9% (497,300 out of 480,000) of scientists in the earth and life science fields accepted evolution.
DeleteThis latest 2015 Pew Research Center poll of AAAS professional scientists shows 98% of all scientists and 99% of scientists in the earth and life sciences accept evolution.
An Elaboration of Scientists Views
Sorry Nic but Creation believers are a very tiny fringe subset in the scientific community
ghostrider,
Delete"The original number I sited came from a famous 1987 Newsweek poll of scientists that found 95% of all scientists and 99.9% (497,300 out of 480,000) of scientists in the earth and life science fields accepted evolution."
Really, be serious, that number is complete crap and every one knows it, and you should as well. If you want to say 90% I won't argue but 99% is pure BS.
"Sorry Nic but Creation believers are a very tiny fringe subset in the scientific community."
No need to feel sorry, I know my view is held by very few in the scientific field. The good part is numbers don't count when it comes to what is true or not true. Besides, you enjoy having me to kick around.:)
Nic
DeleteReally, be serious, that number is complete crap and every one knows it, and you should as well.
LOL! Just like all the scientific evidence for evolution. You don't want to accept it so it must be absolute crap. You just can't provide any reason why those poll results like the 2015 Pew poll should be rejected.
Besides, you enjoy having me to kick around.:)
Nah, just trying to show you the actual science my friend. If you see enough of it maybe someday a tiny bit will sink in. :)
ghostrider,
Delete"LOL! Just like all the scientific evidence for evolution. You don't want to accept it so it must be absolute crap. You just can't provide any reason why those poll results like the 2015 Pew poll should be rejected."
You wouldn't get 99.9% agreement that it was dark at midnight, let alone on such a question as evolution.
"Nah, just trying to show you the actual science my friend. If you see enough of it maybe someday a tiny bit will sink in. :)"
It was looking at the actual science which finished my belief in evolution. :)
Nic
DeleteYou wouldn't get 99.9% agreement that it was dark at midnight, let alone on such a question as evolution.
Like I said - you can't refute the numbers of the Newsweek poll, or the more recent Pew poll. Just you don't like the results so are whining about how they must be phony. You do that with a lot of evidence your Creationist follies can't explain. :)
ghostrider,
Delete"Like I said - you can't refute the numbers of the Newsweek poll, or the more recent Pew poll. Just you don't like the results so are whining about how they must be phony. You do that with a lot of evidence your Creationist follies can't explain. :)"
I have an earned degree in Sociology. A very large part of the study of Sociology is the gathering, compilation and interpretation of statistical data. The first thing you learn is someone claiming a number of 99.9% is either incompetent, lying or both. The only thing he is not, is accurate. As such, you may choose whether Newsweek and Pew are lying or incompetent. Or whether they are guilty of both. What you cannot do is accept their claims as factual. Sorry. :)
Go ahead and write to Pew, tell them their poll results are either lying or inaccurate. Be sure to post their reply here along with your evidence they are guilty of incompetence or fraud. Something tells me merely claiming "I have a Sociology degree!" won't impress anyone or make your case.
DeleteJust curious - what do you think the results would be in a poll of professional scientists asked if the Earth was a globe and not flat? Think it would hit 99%?
ghostrider,
Delete"Go ahead and write to Pew, tell them their poll results are either lying or inaccurate."
The margin of error in a poll such as this is at the very, very best 2.5%. As such any claim above 98% is bogus.
"Something tells me merely claiming "I have a Sociology degree!" won't impress anyone or make your case."
It would let them know I understand statistics and the faults inherent in any system of polling. There are a lot of factors which go into preparing research such as opinion polls. Besides, I doubt very much it was Pew who publicly stated the numbers. It was more than likely the organization which commissioned the study and attached Pew's name.
"Just curious - what do you think the results would be in a poll of professional scientists asked if the Earth was a globe and not flat? Think it would hit 99%?"
Probably, but your margin of error would still exist. However, comparing the idea of a flat Earth with evolution is hardly analogous. That the Earth is a sphere can be empirically observed and demonstrated, common descent cannot. As such, there is much more room for a variety of opinions vis a vis common descent, which is not there for a flat Earth.
Nic
DeleteThe margin of error in a poll such as this is at the very, very best 2.5%. As such any claim above 98% is bogus.
No Nic. 99% is still completely valid. All an error range of 2.5% means is the results fall between 96.5% and 100% with 99% being the most likely value.
Besides, I doubt very much it was Pew who publicly stated the numbers. It was more than likely the organization which commissioned the study and attached Pew's name.
(facepalm) Nic I provide the entire Pew poll report, all 48 pages of it. How can you hope to have a reasonable discussion when you won't even look at the documents provided?
That the Earth is a sphere can be empirically observed and demonstrated, common descent cannot. As such, there is much more room for a variety of opinions vis a vis common descent, which is not there for a flat Earth.
No Nic, there isn't. That's the part you just don't get. That evolution over deep time has occurred is as solidly established a scientific fact as a spherical Earth is. To the scientific community YECs pitching a 6K year Earth / literal Noah's Flood are just as loopy as the Flat Earthers. The YECs have a better PR organization but the science is just as bogus as flat earth proofs.
ghostrider,
Delete"No Nic. 99% is still completely valid."
Suit yourself, this is really not worth our time, is it? :)
"That evolution over deep time has occurred is as solidly established a scientific fact as a spherical Earth is."
You're out of your flipping mind if you think the evidence for evolution via common descent is as scientifically supportable as a spherical Earth. Please, just try to show common descent is observable and demonstrable. And, no, the fossil record and bacterial adaptation is not sufficient evidence, not even remotely sufficient.
"To the scientific community YECs pitching a 6K year Earth / literal Noah's Flood are just as loopy as the Flat Earthers. The YECs have a better PR organization but the science is just as bogus as flat earth proofs."
Then you should be able to do more than call me as loopy as a flat-Earther, right? :) So far, you have not even come close to doing so.
Joe G says OOL is impossible because it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
DeleteOther people have made that argument and you have nothing that can refute it. We understand it bothers you tat your position has nothing but whiners like you for "support".
The original number I sited came from a famous 1987 Newsweek poll of scientists that found 95% of all scientists and 99.9% (497,300 out of 480,000) of scientists in the earth and life science fields accepted evolution.
DeleteLoL! More cowardly equivocation. What type of evolution do they accept and why? They sure as hell cannot find a way to test unguided evolution so that would be a major problem for anyone trying to equivocate.
I have seen arguments by each of you that have been soundly disproven,
DeleteSure you have. But then again you also think there is evidence that natural selection can produce complex protein machinery.
Nic
DeleteThen you should be able to do more than call me as loopy as a flat-Earther, right? :) So far, you have not even come close to doing so.
Nic there is far far too much evidence to every present on this teeny blog. As an example, Elsevier this week announced the publication of a new four volume set Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Biology. It's got hundreds of scientific papers from the world's top researchers.
Here's the Table of Contents. I had to break it into 3 parts because it exceed the blog post size limit.
Part 1 TOC:
Animal Diversification: Amniotes, diversification of; Amniotes, the origin of; Anima: what is an animal? Bird flight origins; Birds, diversification of; Cambrian Explosion: A molecular Palaeobiological overview; Complexity, the role of oxygen in evolution of; Homo, diversification of; Insects and Ecdysozoa, diversification of; Land animals, origins of; Land vertebrates, the origin and evolution of; Lophotrochozoa, diversification of; Mammalian diversification; Mammals, diversification of; Mammals, origin of; Metazoans, origins of; Vertebrates, the origin of.
Applied Evolution: Basic science and evolutionary biology; Conservation biology, evolution and; Evolution and Agriculture I. The evolution of domestication; Evolution and Agriculture II. Evolutionary Applications to breeding; Evolutionary computation; Evolutionary Medicine: I. An Overview and Applications to Cancer; Evolutionary Medicine II. Use of the comparative method and the animal model; Evolutionary Medicine III. Mismatch; Evolutionary Medicine IV. Evolution and emergence of novel pathogens; Human life histories, evolution and; Invasive species, evolution and; Pest management, evolution and; Philosophy, evolutionary biology and; Responses to climate change, evolution and; Security, evolution.
Coevolution: Antagonistic interspecific coevolution; Coevolutionary fitness landscapes; Coevolution, introduction to; Commensalism, amensalism, and synnecrosis; Cospeciation; Ecological fitting and novel species interactions in nature; Endogenous retroviruses and coevolution; Endosymbiotic theory; Geographic mosaic of coevolution; Intrapecific coevolutionary arms races; Microbiome; Mitochondrial and nuclear genome coevolution; Mutualism, the evolutionary ecology of; Predation and parasitism; Sequential speciation; Symbiosis, introduction to.
Evo-Devo: Adaptive radiations: insights from evo-devo;Cellular behaviors underlying pattern formation and evolution; Developmental biases on morphological evolvability; Developmental-genetic toolkit for evolutionary developmental biology; Developmental mechanisms controlling cell fate, evolution of; Developmental paleontology and paleo-evo-devo; Developmental plasticity and phenotypic evolution; Ecological evolutionary developmental biology; Gene networks driving development, conservation and evolution of; Genome evolution's role in developmental evolution; Genotype to phenotype: insights from Evo-Devo; Model systems: the key roles of traditional and new models in evolutionary developmental biology; Modularity and integration in Evo-Devo; Novel structures in animals, developmental evolution of; Novel structures in plants, developmental evolution of; Phylogenetic approach to studying developmental evolution: a model clade approach; Regulatory and coding changes in developmental evolution, roles of.
Part 2 TOC:
DeleteEvolutionary biogeography: Biogeography, conservation; Biogeography, ecological theories in; Biogeography, evolutionary theories in; Biogeography, history of; Biogeography, human; Biogeography, marine; Biogeography, microbial; Biogeography of arthropods; Biogeography of interactions; Biogeography of islands, lakes, and mountaintops; evolutionary; Biogeography of vertebrates; Biogeography, patterns in; Dispersal biogeography; Invasion biogeography; Paleobiogeography and fossils; Phylogeography; Quaternary biogeography & climate change; Vicariance biogeography.
History of Evolutionary Biology: Adaptation, history of; Darwin's finches, the Galapagos, and natural laboratories of evolution; Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution; Directed evolution, history of; Evolutionary biology, history of; Evolutionary genetics, history of; Industrial melanism, history of; Molecular evolution, history of; Origins of life, history of; Paleobiological revolution, history of; Schools of classification; Sociobiology, history of; Symbiogenesis, history of; Symbiosis, history of; Synthetic theory of evolution, history of; Waddington's epigenetic landscape, history of.
Life History Evolution: Age-specific survivorship and fertility, estimating;Aging: why do we age? Inheritance: from quantitative genetics to evolutionary stable strategies; Life histories, axes of variation in; Life history: age and stage structure; Life history evolution, human; Life history evolution, human impacts on; Life history evolution in guppies, experimental studies of; Life history evolution in island populations of birds; Life history evolution, plants; Life history evolution: the role of mating systems; Life history patterns; Life history: pike; Life history theory: basics;Life history trade-offs; Life history, what is;r- and K-selection in fluctuating environments, theory of.
Microbial evolution: Adaptive mutation controversy; Bacterial diversity, introduction to; Bacterial species concepts; Coevolution, bacterial-phage; Cooperation and public goods, bacterial; Genome plasticity, bacterial; Genome size and structure, bacterial; Microbial experimental evolution; Molecular evolution, functional synthesis of; Pathogen epidemiology; Plasmid driven evolution of bacteria; Protist diversification ; Recombination in bacterial populations ; RNA viruses, evolution of; Species concepts: viral quasispecies.
Molecular and Genome Evolution: Adaptive molecular evolution: detection methods; Ancestral reconstruction: theory and practice; Codon usage and translational selection; Compensatory evolution; Epigenetics and genome evolution; Gene origin, sex chromosomes and; Genome organization, evolution of; Mating systems in plants, genome evolution and; Mutation and Genome Evolution; Non-coding DNA evolution: junk DNA revisited; Non-coding RNAs, origin and evolution of; Origin of life, RNA world and; Parallel and convergent molecular evolution; Protein Biophysics and Evolution; Recombination and molecular evolution; Robustness and evolvability in molecular evolution; Sensory systems: molecular evolution in vertebrates; Systems biology, evolutionary.
Phylogenetic Methods: Bayesian phylogenetic methods; Consensus methods, phylogenetic; Distance-based phylogenetic inference; Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic inference; Molecular evolution, models of; Parsimony methods in phylogenetics; Phylogenetic comparative method; Phylogenetic invariants; Phylogenetic networks; Phylogenetic tree; Phylogenetic tree comparison; Phylogenetic tree distances; Rooting trees, methods for; Searching tree space, methods for; Species trees, inference of; Supertree methods, phylogenetic; Support measures, phylogenetic tree.
Part 3 TOC:
DeletePlant/Fungus Diversification: Angiosperm phylogeny and diversification; Archaeplastida: diversification of red algae and the green plant lineage; C4 and CAM photosynthesis in land plants, evolution and diversification of; Carbon relations, the role in plant diversification of; "Convergent evolution, adaptive radiation, and species diversification in plants”; Endophytic microbes, evolution and diverisification of; Evo-devo: regulatory and protein-coding evolution in plant diversification; Fungal evolution: aquatic-terrestrial transitions; Lichen-forming fungi, diversification of; Mycorrhizal fungi, evolution and diversification of; Plant-pollinator interactions and flower diversification; Secondary metabolites, the role in plant diversification of; Seedless land plants, evolution and diversification of; Unikonts, evolution and diversification of (with emphasis on fungal-like forms); Water transport, the role in plant diversification of.
Population Genetics: Coalescent and models of identity by descent; Directional selection and adaptation; Effective population size; Genetic drift, models of random; Genetic variation in populations; Genetic variation, maintenance of; Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium and random mating; Inbreeding and non-random mating; Linkage Disequilibrium: population genetics of multiple loci; Mutation, population genetic models of; Natural selection, introduction to; Neutral evolution, population genetic tests of; Neutral models of genetic drift and mutation; Population structure and gene flow; Recombination and selection; Selective sweeps; Shifting balance theory, Sewall Wright and; Transposable elements, population genetics of.
Quantitative genetics: Adaptive landscapes; Artificial selection; Climate change, quantitative genetics and; Conservation biology, quantitiative genetics in; Divergence and diversification, quantitative genetics of; Epigenetic inheritance; Evolvability, quantitative genetics of;Gene interactions in evolution; Genetic architecture; Genotype-by-Environment Interaction; Macroevolution, quantitative genetics and; Maternal effects; Modularity and integration; Multivariate quantitative genetics; Natural selection, measuring; Quantitative genetics in natural populations; Quantitative genetic variation; Quantitative genetic variation, comparing patterns of; Quantitative trait variation, molecular basis of; Social effects.
Sex, Recombination, and Mating Systems: Hermaphrodites; Mate choice and sexually selected traits; Mating and parental sex roles, diversity in; Mating systems, a brief history of; Mating systems in a changing environment; Mating systems in flowering plants; Mating tactics and mating strategies; Operational sex ratio; Polyandry and female post-copulatory choice; Sex and recombination in snails; Sex and selfish genetic elements; Sex chromosome evolution: birth, maturation, decay and rebirth; Sex determination; Sex, evolution and maintenance of; Sexual conflict; Sexual dimorphism; Sexual networks; Sexual selection, theory of; Sperm competition.
Speciation and Hybridization: Ecological speciation and its consequences; Founder speciation; Hybrid speciation; Parallel speciation; Polyploid speciation; Reinforcement; Reproductive isolation, postzygotic; Reproductive isolation, prezygotic; Ring species; Speciation, chromosomal rearrangements and; Speciation continuum; Speciation genes; Speciation genomics; Speciation, geography of;Speciation, sexual conflict and; Speciation, sexual selection and; Speciation with gene flow; Species concepts and speciation.
That doesn't even include all the evidence from paleontology. Seriously my friend, your "there's no evidence Earth is flat" shtick is beyond silly.
ghostrider,
Delete"Part 3 TOC:
Plant/Fungus Diversification: Angiosperm phylogeny and diversification; Archaeplastida: diversification of red algae and the green plant lineage; C4 and CAM photosynthesis in land plants, evolution and diversification of; Carbon relations, the role in plant diversification of; "Convergent evolution, adaptive radiation, and species diversification in plants”; Endophytic microbes, evolution and diverisification of;"
You're kidding, right? Please, tell me you're kidding.
How is any of this evidence of evolution without the presumption of evolution?
All I can do is show you how much evidence there is Nic. I can't make you think.
DeleteLoL! All you can do is equivocate like a coward. There isn't any evidence for unguided evolution's ability to produce anything but diseases and deformities.
DeleteBut you wouldn't know because you are a gullible chump
ghostrider,
Delete"All I can do is show you how much evidence there is Nic. I can't make you think."
I know about the 'evidence' for evolution, ghostrider, I used to believe it. It was thinking about the 'evidence' which led me to a different conclusion.
You did not answer my question, how is this evidence for evolution if you do not presume evolution to begin with?
Take one example; "diversification of red algae and the green plant lineage;..." First, the diversification of red algae can ONLY be explained by evolution, why?
Second, how is the diversification of red algae evidence for common descent?
Nic
DeleteYou did not answer my question, how is this evidence for evolution if you do not presume evolution to begin with?
Sigh. We've been over this a dozen times. The idea of evolution proposed by Darwin started off as a hypothesis. Over time it was tested and amassed more and more and more positive evidence it achieved the status of scientific theory. There's no one piece of evidence that conclusively demonstrates evolution over deep time. It's the consilience of ALL the evidence taken as a whole.
Take one example; "diversification of red algae and the green plant lineage;..."
No Nic, i won't take one example. That's how scientifically ignorant creationists do things, demand each piece of evidence be examined separately. Science looks at the big picture formed by all the pieces of the puzzle, not just one piece at a time. I know that's been explained to you a dozen times too. If you don't get it by now you'll probably never get it.
Nic
DeleteLol! You're dealing with the ghost of Eugenie Scott.
"Facts are interesting, but they're not terribly exciting. Hypotheses help us build theory. Theories are the most important things in science. Theories mean explanation. But laws are broken, both in science as well as in.... euh... the real world. Laws are not as important as theories, because theories explain laws. Theories are most important! Then come laws, hypotheses, and facts. Facts don't explain anything."
Ghostrider
DeleteThe evidence so called you present under criticism fall to pieces for the most part. Not to mention the endless and I mean ceaselessly endless barrage of unrelenting assumptions. Two or three assumptions and you have nothing. Scientific? About as scientific as the preposterous drivel the cosmologists
conjured out of nothing.
cv5
DeleteThe evidence so called you present under criticism fall to pieces for the most part.
Your ignorance-based personal opinion is noted.
Two or three assumptions and you have nothing.
LOL! The usual Creationist crutch. When all else fails start whining about "bad assumptions". Never mind you can never list those 'bad" assumptions or show why they are wrong.
LoL! You can't even tell us how to test the claim that natural selection and drift did it. No one can. That you can't see that is a huge problem for something claiming to be science reflects your ignorance.
DeleteThere isn't any scientific theory of evolution. If there was then someone would be able to link to it. Yet no one can.
Deleteghostrider,
DeleteNic: "Take one example; "diversification of red algae and the green plant lineage;..."
ghostrider: "No Nic, i won't take one example. That's how scientifically ignorant creationists do things, demand each piece of evidence be examined separately. Science looks at the big picture formed by all the pieces of the puzzle, not just one piece at a time. I know that's been explained to you a dozen times too. If you don't get it by now you'll probably never get it."
First, I'll take that as ghostrider has not got a clue how the diversification of red algae is evidence for common descent which proves my point.
Second, if you want to take them all together that's fine but then you must still apply both questions to the whole. When you do so you will wind up with the same answers. Evolution is not the ONLY way to explain them and they do not support common descent without the presumption of evolution being true.
Phillymike,
Delete"Lol! You're dealing with the ghost of Eugenie Scott."
Yeah, she's a real comedian. She's the bright bulb who came up with the line "there are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." Naivete' thy name is Eugenie.
ghostrider,
Delete"Never mind you can never list those 'bad" assumptions or show why they are wrong."
Bad assumption: Because bacteria may develop a resistance to an anti-biotic it is reasonable to conclude all life evolved from a single common ancestor.
Bad assumption: Because canines can be bred to create a wide variety of canine creatures it is only logical to extrapolate that a reptile can also turn into a mammal.
Bad assumption: All life has arisen through a process begun when non-living compounds somehow became living organisms.
How's that? There are three bad assumptions accepted and acted upon regularly by evolutionists. :)
Nic
DeleteHow's that? There are three bad assumptions accepted and acted upon regularly by evolutionists.
Pretty sucky. None of those three "assumptions" have anything to do with the fact evolution over deep time has occurred or the validity of the theory which explains the changes. The first two aren't assumptions at all but inferences derived from the empirical data. The last has to do with abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution is what happens after we have imperfect self-replicators competing for resources.
You still get an F in science but at least you tried. :)
Nic
DeleteFirst, I'll take that as ghostrider has not got a clue how the diversification of red algae is evidence for common descent which proves my point.
The point that Creationists cherry pick individual pieces of data and ignore the big picture? Tell us something we didn't already know,
Evolution is not the ONLY way to explain them
It's the only way we have now that explains all the data in a consilient manner.
and they do not support common descent without the presumption of evolution being true
Common descent isn't presumed Nic. It's an inference derived from the empirical data. ID-Creation is the position that assumes its conclusion without any evidence.
Evolutionist also ignore the big picture, that is that every organism has lots and lots of characteristics that we know from experience are characteristics of designed things only.
DeleteAnd ID looks at all the things that look like they are designed, that are all over every organism at every level.
ghostrider,
Delete"The point that Creationists cherry pick individual pieces of data and ignore the big picture? Tell us something we didn't already know."
If your theory is consilient, as you consistently like to claim, 'cherry picking' should not be a problem. Evolution should be able to answer each 'cherry pick' easily demonstrating the consilient nature of the theory.
Evolution is not a consilient explanation, very far from it in fact. Evolution is doing science with a rubber ruler. The whole edifice is supported by baseless assumptions, unsupportable extrapolations and the need to weave intricate just-so stories in a vain attempt to produce the illusion of consilience.
"Common descent isn't presumed Nic. It's an inference derived from the empirical data."
The empirical data does not support the idea of common descent, in fact it demonstrates the exact opposite. Canines always produce canines, mammals always produce mammals, etc, etc,, ad nauseum. The concept of common descent demands that at some point this pattern must deviate, yet it has never been observed to do so.
"ID-Creation is the position that assumes its conclusion without any evidence."
All empirical data shows complex and information rich systems stem only from intelligent sources. So, no, ID does not form its conclusion without evidence to support it. It has clear, observable, repeatable empirical support for those conclusions. Evolution has assumptions, extrapolation, wishful thinking and story telling.
natschuster
DeleteEvolutionist also ignore the big picture, that is that every organism has lots and lots of characteristics that we know from experience are characteristics of designed things only.
No nat, we don't know that. That's just ID-Creationist circular logic.
Nic
DeleteIf your theory is consilient, as you consistently like to claim, 'cherry picking' should not be a problem. Evolution should be able to answer each 'cherry pick' easily demonstrating the consilient nature of the theory.
Sure Nic. As soon as you can tell me the whole picture on a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle from just one piece.
Evolution is not a consilient explanation, very far from it in fact.
It is to science professionals, those who actually study the subject.
The empirical data does not support the idea of common descent, in fact it demonstrates the exact opposite. Canines always produce canines, mammals always produce mammals, etc, etc,, ad nauseum.
Sorry Nic but canines didn't exist before about 40 MYA. Before that time there were the family Miacidae that evolved into the Carnivoria which then split into canines, felines, ursines (bears) and pinnipeds (seals)
order Carnivora
Before about 225 MYA there were no mammals. They evolved from the earlier Therapsid lineage.
mammal evolutionary history
All empirical data shows complex and information rich systems stem only from intelligent sources.
This is false also. It has been demonstrated that amazingly complex systems can be produce through simple iterative processes using feedback and inheritance. Evolution is just such a system.
ghostrider,
Delete"Sure Nic. As soon as you can tell me the whole picture on a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle from just one piece".
If evolutionary theory is consilient red algae diversification should be able to stand on its own, as should all the examples you gave.
"It is to science professionals, those who actually study the subject."
Of course they say it is consilient, their entire world view depends on it being consilient. An objective viewing of the situation demonstrates it clearly is not.
"Sorry Nic but canines didn't exist before about 40 MYA."
So you like to say. However, you cannot demonstrate that to be a fact without a pile of assumptions and presuppositions being put in place before hand.
"It has been demonstrated that amazingly complex systems can be produce through simple iterative processes using feedback and inheritance."
Point me to the evidence to support this, please. :)
GR:
DeleteHave humans ever seen anything as complex, or should i say simple as a slingshot being made without design? Then that means that in all oiur experience these things that look like they were designed were really designed.
Nic
DeleteIf evolutionary theory is consilient red algae diversification should be able to stand on its own, as should all the examples you gave.
Here Nic
The origin of red algae and the evolution of chloroplasts
Evolution: Red Algal Genome Affirms a Common Origin of All Plastids
You won't read them of course, probably won't even open the links before we get the standard excuse "common design!". Right?
So you like to say. However, you cannot demonstrate that to be a fact without a pile of assumptions and presuppositions being put in place before hand.
There are millions of fossils in the fossil record going back over 3 billion years. Show me some canine fossil that date earlier than 40 MYA. Or show me some mammal fossils from before 225 MYA.
Point me to the evidence to support this, please. :)
Introduction to Evolutionary Algorithms
You're welcome.
natschuster
DeleteHave humans ever seen anything as complex, or should i say simple as a slingshot being made without design?
Yes. We see such things in naturally evolved life forms all the time
ghostrider,
Deleteghostrider: "It has been demonstrated that amazingly complex systems can be produce through simple iterative processes using feedback and inheritance."
Nic: "Point me to the evidence to support this, please. :)"
ghostrider: "Introduction to Evolutionary Algorithms"
This is your evidence showing evolution, via natural unguided and unintelligent processes, can form amazingly complex systems; an intelligently designed and guided computer algorithm?
How does an intelligently designed computer algorithm demonstrate unguided, unintelligent, mindless and goalless evolutionary processes? By its very nature a computer program is goal oriented and intelligently programmed to function in a particular manner. Both these factors completely undermine an evolutionary algorithm's ability to demonstrate a goalless and unintelligent process. One would think that fact would be woefully obvious, but apparently not to evolutionists. :)
Really, ghsotrider, if that is all you've got you're in serious trouble.
Lol! ghostrider
DeleteHave you actually read the OP?
I'm convinced Cornelius pays you to illustrate his point :)
GR:
DeleteWe have never actually seen that complex stuff evolve. We don't know that organisms evolved. Your asking me to accept something as fact when it hasn't even been demonstrated that it is possible, based on our experience making things. Are you sure it's the creationists who are ignoring the "big picture?"
GR:
DeleteY'know, there are no computer fossil dating back more than a hundred years or so. There are no car fossils dating back more than a ~150 years. But, to the best of my knowledge cars and computers were designed. So dog might have been designed, too.
natschuster
DeleteWe have never actually seen that complex stuff evolve
We've never seen plate tectonics form a whole mountain either. Here's the thing nat - science doesn't have to see events happen in real time to understand how they occurred. We can do that by examining the evidence the event leaves behind.
I know you're too slow to get that but maybe some Creationist somewhere has an IQ over 50.
Nic
DeleteThis is your evidence showing evolution, via natural unguided and unintelligent processes, can form amazingly complex systems; an intelligently designed and guided computer algorithm?
You asked how simple iterative processes can form complex results. The tutorial on EAs explains how. It doesn't surprise me even a little that you're not interested in learning or bettering yourself.
BTW Nic, I see you sure shut up quickly on your red algae rant when the evidence was presented. No surprises there either.
Deleteghostrider,
Delete"You asked how simple iterative processes can form complex results. The tutorial on EAs explains how."
No, ghostrider, they do not, not even close. Evolution by its very definition and nature is an unguided process with no end results in mind. Therefore a guided process, which is intelligently designed and has goals in mind cannot be used to explain how a process with no intelligent input or any specific goals in mind has functioned over eons of time. That is painfully obvious to anyone with even the slightest objective outlook.
Unfortunately you have already imbibed in copious amounts of evolutionary kool-aid and you simply cannot see what is so strikingly obvious to all except the most ardent evolutionist.
"It doesn't surprise me even a little that you're not interested in learning or bettering yourself."
As I have said several times already, I used to think like you do, it was when I actually began to look objectively at the evidence that I rejected evolution for the nonsensical fairy tale it is. :)
"BTW Nic, I see you sure shut up quickly on your red algae rant when the evidence was presented. No surprises there either."
Oh, you mean the paper which, as is usual with evolutionary papers, asserted evolution to be true in the opening paragraph and then went on to show why it is true. Is that the evidence you mean?
It was replete with the usual evolutionary rhetoric about how things 'apparently' occurred or 'possibly could have' occurred, or we can 'infer' such and such happened.
Sorry, my friend, that is not even close to evidence. It is nothing more than one long assertion as to how red algae diversification is the result of evolution. It provided not one iota of demonstrable evidence to support any of its claims. In other words, it was just your typical evolutionary story telling designed to bolster morale among the faithful.
I have no problem with the idea of significant diversification among red algae as that fits right in with the views of both ID and creationism. I only take issue with the idea that such diversification is somehow evidence for common descent. This argument is the plant equivalent of the bacteria argument. Red algae remaining algae is hardly evidence of common descent in the same way bacteria remaining bacteria is not an argument for common descent.
You need a new writer Nic. Constantly regurgitating the same tired Creationist excuses is too boring. Like the stupidity "a computer model of a natural process proves the natural process was designed". And the old favorite "the paper assumes evolution". You bitched about red algae being just one piece of the huge puzzle and when I showed you how it fit in you went right back to whining it didn't show the whole puzzle picture.
DeleteI'm not going to waste any more time trying to educate someone who doesn't want to learn. I'll keep pointing out the blatant lies about science that get posted on this blog but that's about it.
ghostrider,
Delete"Like the stupidity "a computer model of a natural process proves the natural process was designed"."
That is not what I said, you're simply erecting a straw man because you cannot counter the argument.
Does a designed evolutionary algorithm prove the case for intelligent design? No, but what it does do is clearly illustrate the need for intelligence to simply imitate evolutionary processes.
So, one is left with an obvious question. If intelligence is required to simply imitate evolutionary processes, why would one suppose the actual process could possibly function without intelligence?
"when I showed you how it fit in you went right back to whining it didn't show the whole puzzle picture."
You didn't do anything of the sort. All your red algae argument showed was red algae diversified, nothing more. All 'IDiots', as you like to call them, and creationists accept diversification within organisms. Diversification in and of itself does nothing to support the concept of common descent. It only supports the concept of diversification.
"I'm not going to waste any more time trying to educate someone who doesn't want to learn."
It's rather arrogant of you to assume I am so poorly educated that I require you to teach me. I managed to get through six years of university before you came along. How do you suppose I managed that without your guidance? :)
GW:
DeleteSee, it's like this. It hasn't been demonstrated that it is even possible to make all this stuff that looks designed without design. All our experience making things indicates that it isn't possible. That is the big picture when it comes to looking at designed stuff. And it hasn't been demonstrated that organisms evolved via Darwinism, or that it is even possible. So taking a big picture look, I'd say that design is indicated.
Nic
DeleteSo, one is left with an obvious question. If intelligence is required to simply imitate evolutionary processes, why would one suppose the actual process could possibly function without intelligence?
Nic do you have brain damage? The intelligence in a simulation all goes into writing the wrapper software, NOT into the physical process being simulated. NASA uses gravity simulation software to plot the trajectories of space probes. Do you really think that's evidence gravity needs intelligent inputs to work?
It's rather arrogant of you to assume I am so poorly educated that I require you to teach me
As Will Rogers once noted, "all people are ignorant, just in different subjects". I'm pretty ignorant of Sociology and could learn the details from you. You're pretty ignorant in evolutionary biology and could learn the details from me IF you were interested in learning. But alas you're not.
natschuster
DeleteIt hasn't been demonstrated that it is even possible to make all this stuff that looks designed without design.
Yes nat, it has. All your ignorant squawking won't change that.
ghostrider,
Delete"Nic do you have brain damage? The intelligence in a simulation all goes into writing the wrapper software, NOT into the physical process being simulated. NASA uses gravity simulation software to plot the trajectories of space probes. Do you really think that's evidence gravity needs intelligent inputs to work?"
The same question could be asked of you.:)
Is anyone claiming gravity is responsible for the origin of life and its evolution over 4.5 billion years? The two are not at all analogous.
"You're pretty ignorant in evolutionary biology and could learn the details from me IF you were interested in learning. But alas you're not."
Yeah, I guess I am, but I am bright enough to understand evolution is irrelevant to biology and that biology has functioned and will continue to function without the need of evolutionary theory. I am also bright enough to see deign is a much better explanation of what we witness in biology than is a blind purposeless process such as evolution.
Nic
DeleteIs anyone claiming gravity is responsible for the origin of life and its evolution over 4.5 billion years? The two are not at all analogous.
ZOOM! Look at those goalposts fly. I don't blame you for trying to change the subject after your last dumb comment, that intelligently produced simulations mean the process being simulated requires intelligence.
I am bright enough to understand evolution is irrelevant to biology and that biology has functioned and will continue to function without the need of evolutionary theory.
Dunning Kruger at work. Gravity works without the theory of gravity too. Germs make people sick without the germ theory of disease. The continents still move without the theory of plate tectonics. The reason scientific theories are formulated are to help us understand. Understand the mechanisms, understand the past, understand and be better prepared for what might happen in the future.
I am also bright enough to see deign is a much better explanation of what we witness in biology than is a blind purposeless process such as evolution.
More ignorance based bravado completely unsupported by any facts.
ghostrider,
Delete"ZOOM! Look at those goalposts fly. I don't blame you for trying to change the subject after your last dumb comment, that intelligently produced simulations mean the process being simulated requires intelligence."
The only one who thinks the goal posts are moving is the one who is not paying attention to the game. ;)
No, not all intelligently produced simulations mean the process being simulated must be intelligent, but some certainly do and therein lay the difference.
"Dunning Kruger at work. Gravity works without the theory of gravity too."
Nice try, but no cigar. Evolutionists are the ones who claim biology is meaningless without evolution, not me.
Gravity still has plenty of meaning with out the theory of gravity as do plate tectonics and their accompanying theories. And that, my friend, is the point. Evolution is simply a philosophy which attempts to explain biology, and not successfully at that, not biology itself.
"More ignorance based bravado completely unsupported by any facts."
It's supported by the fact you're unable to provide any type of convincing evidence, nor is the scientific community as a whole. That could be why evolutionary theory is being re-assessed even by those who adhere to it.
http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/
Nic
DeleteNo, not all intelligently produced simulations mean the process being simulated must be intelligent, but some certainly do and therein lay the difference
Which ones do and most importantly how did you objectively make the determination?
This should be good for LOLZ. :)
Evolutionists are the ones who claim biology is meaningless without evolution, not me.
WTF does that even mean??? Why would biology be meaningless and not the other naturally occurring phenomena?
It's supported by the fact you're unable to provide any type of convincing evidence, nor is the scientific community as a whole.
Possibly not to you but that's because you've already decided a priori to reject all evidence. Why you think that affects scientifically verified reality is the mystery.
GR:
DeletePerhaps you would be so kind as to provide an example of something that has characteristics that we know form experience to be characteristics of designed things only that was not designed? Please don't say life since we don't know that life wasn't designed. I'd settle for something like a tool, a machine, a vehicle. And please don't site something that was designed that looks like it wasn't. We are talking about things that look designed.
ghostrider,
Delete"Which ones do and most importantly how did you objectively make the determination?"
I would make the determination based on observation. Playing a game of chess is a process which requires intelligence. As such, if you're going to program a simulated chess game you will need to accept the fact intelligence is part of that process. If you do not, your programming will be pointless, if not impossible.
"Why would biology be meaningless and not the other naturally occurring phenomena?"
Ask the people who love to quote Dobzhanky's nonsensical claim.
"Possibly not to you but that's because you've already decided a priori to reject all evidence. Why you think that affects scientifically verified reality is the mystery."
As I have already told you several times, I used to adhere to evolutionary thought, so, obviously I did not a priori reject all the evidence. I only came to reject it when I started to look at it objectively. Why is that so hard to understand?
Nic
DeleteI would make the determination based on observation.
Weaseling non-answer noted. We're talking about observed natural processes - gravity, erosion, tectonic movement, evolution, electrical discharges, formation of hurricanes, etc. I know you claim evolution requires intelligence but I want to know how you objectively came to that conclusion. You also implied there was more than one. What other observed natural processes require intelligence to operate?
Ask the people who love to quote Dobzhanky's nonsensical claim.
Dobzhanky didn't say biology is meaningless. He said nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. That's a very different thing than your silly claim.
I only came to reject it when I started to look at it objectively. Why is that so hard to understand?
Because I know you don't have the scientific background to objectively assess the evidence. You assess solely based on your religious beliefs. Nothing wrong with that as your personal philosophy but don't pretend it's in any way based on science.
natschuster
DeletePerhaps you would be so kind as to provide an example of something that has characteristics that we know form experience to be characteristics of designed things only that was not designed
What are the characteristics of designed things only? How did you determine only design can produce them? We know naturally occurring processes can produce complex features and IC structures so it can't be them. What else do you have to offer?
ghostrider,
Delete"Weaseling non-answer noted."
Typical ghostrider rote rejection of any response he deems unsuitable also noted.:)
"What other observed natural processes require intelligence to operate?"
It's funny how evolutionists always refer to 'natural processes' as if there is no intelligence involved in the workings of nature. Do you really believe nature just popped into existence all on its own?
The laws which govern nature display all the hallmarks of intelligence to any objective mind, but apparently not to evolutionists who seem to believe those laws are the force which drives nature, when in reality they are the rules which govern its actions. Rules and laws very clearly and strongly imply an intelligent source to explain their existence. Therefore, all of nature and the actions thereof are the result of intelligence. That, ghostrider, is the fundamental difference in our outlook of life.
"He said nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
I agree he did not say biology was meaningless without evolution, but his comment that nothing makes sense in biology without evolution is completely absurd. Many Christians who believe in creation are practicing biologists and do just fine without ever appealing to evolution.
It is the same with genetics, physics or any other field of science you wish too mention. None of these scientists need appeal to evolution to carry out their work. As such , the claim that an evolutionary mindset is necessary to make sense of biology, or any other field of research, is palpable nonsense.
"Nothing wrong with that as your personal philosophy but don't pretend it's in any way based on science."
All science and all scientists are philosophical in nature, including you. :) Science cannot function outside a philosophical framework.
Nic
DeleteThe laws which govern nature display all the hallmarks of intelligence to any objective mind, but apparently not to evolutionists who seem to believe those laws are the force which drives nature, when in reality they are the rules which govern its actions. Rules and laws very clearly and strongly imply an intelligent source to explain their existence. Therefore, all of nature and the actions thereof are the result of intelligence. That, ghostrider, is the fundamental difference in our outlook of life.
Congratulations on just directly contradicting yourself. Above you said some natural processes don't require intelligence to work, remember?
Nic above: "not all intelligently produced simulations mean the process being simulated must be intelligent"
Now you say all do require intelligence. Let me know when you finally make up your mind. :)
I agree he did not say biology was meaningless without evolution,
So when you claimed evolutionists say biology is meaningless you were wrong. Got it.
None of these scientists need appeal to evolution to carry out their work
But to fully understand what they are doing, yes they do need the evolution paradigm. You really think paleontologists say "oh look, a fossil. I don't care about the history of it or its ancestors, I'll just dig it up."
Science cannot function outside a philosophical framework.
Try adopting a philosophy that says gravity isn't important, then jump off a tall building. See if the science cannot work. Have a friend video record it for the evening news. :)
GR:
DeleteWould you be so kind as to provide an example of something as complex as a pair of scissors that we know was not designed?
natschuster
DeleteWould you be so kind as to provide an example of something as complex as a pair of scissors that we know was not designed?
You can't prove a negative nat. The best we can do is offer examples where there is no evidence of external design. The covers all biological life.
ghostrider,
Delete"Above you said some natural processes don't require intelligence to work, remember?"
No, I don't remember that. What I remember saying is that not all simulations require intelligence in that which they are simulating. Which is exactly what the following quote says.
"Nic above: "not all intelligently produced simulations mean the process being simulated must be intelligent"
Nic: "None of these scientists need appeal to evolution to carry out their work."
ghostrider: "But to fully understand what they are doing, yes they do need the evolution paradigm."
No, they do not. If they don't accept the concept of evolution why would they refer to it for guidance? It's only because you cannot get your head around the idea evolution may be false and therefore you cannot comprehend how anyone could possibly function without it. Well, my friend, they can and they do.
"Try adopting a philosophy that says gravity isn't important, then jump off a tall building."
One can hold to a philosophy which is false. That would be the case with the individual jumping off the building expecting to float. Whether his philosophy is valid or invalid is irrelevant to the fact he holds to a philosophy. Get it? :)
ghostrider,
Delete"You can't prove a negative nat."
Yes, you can prove a negative, it is done all the time. You can prove there are no square circles or married bachelors. By doing so you are proving a negative.
"The best we can do is offer examples where there is no evidence of external design. The covers all biological life."
How is all biological life an example for which there is no evidence for external design? What does it lack that would be considered evidence for design? Perhaps a serial number or a production date? How about an 'inspected by #8' sticker? What would biological life need to exhibit to be seen as having evidence of external design, ghostrider?
Nic
DeleteYes, you can prove a negative
OK then, give me an example of an object you can prove with 100% certainty is not designed.
What would biological life need to exhibit to be seen as having evidence of external design, ghostrider?
Same as the last time you made the request. Things like evidence for a mechanism of physical manufacture (i.e tools, dies, jigs used in assembly, tool marks), a timeline of the production, and and of course the identity of the designer / manufacturer.
You have any of those things?
In the Creationist case you also need a good explanation for the fossil and genetic records, and why the Designer made all species to look exactly like they had evolved over deep time.
ghostrider,
Delete"OK then, give me an example of an object you can prove with 100% certainty is not designed."
Pardon me, did I say you could prove every negative or that you could prove a negative?
"Same as the last time you made the request. Things like evidence for a mechanism of physical manufacture (i.e tools, dies, jigs used in assembly, tool marks), a timeline of the production, and and of course the identity of the designer / manufacturer."
Why would those be necessary to prove design? Those would be indicators of manufacturing as we understand and practice it. Does that mean all 'manufacturing' must be done in that manner? No, that is just your materialistic thinking showing through. :)
Instead, think of the final line of Bruce Springsteen's song Jesus Was An Only Son; "remember the soul of the universe who willed a world and it appeared."
As for the identity of a designer, why is that necessary to perceive design? The design and the designer are not synonymous.
You may insist these things are necessary but that does not dictate their necessity for anyone but you.
"the Designer made all species to look exactly like they had evolved over deep time."
He did? Why do you say that? What exactly is it that makes them look like they evolved over deep time? And how would you know the difference? To you everything has evolved over deep time, so you have no idea what things would look like if they had not evolved. You may speculate how you think they should look but it would just that, speculation.
Nic
DeleteInstead, think of the final line of Bruce Springsteen's song Jesus Was An Only Son; "remember the soul of the universe who willed a world and it appeared."
Then show your evidence species were "willed" into existence.
You may insist these things are necessary but that does not dictate their necessity for anyone but you.
Me and the rest of the scientific community.
He did? Why do you say that? What exactly is it that makes them look like they evolved over deep time?
The matching nested branching pattern in the fossil and genetic records. An omnipotent designer could mix and match any combination of traits and timelines and produce an unlimited number of different patterns. Evolution through common descent can only produce one very distinct pattern, and that's the pattern we see.
ghostrider....
DeleteNobody has the slightest idea of what gravity is. The best theory I have heard is polarization of the ZPE field.
I have come across theories that huniliate plate tectonics. Theories postulating mountain building in WEEKS that were far more substantive than the commonplace junk science that I find simply pathetic by comparison.
Theories that point out how migration is by far the most potent and exceedingly rapid cause of extinction.
BTW 90% of the content you post belongs on '60's era textbooks now debunked. Yet the echoes linger on in your posts.
So tell me....how is it that in the Hubble deep, deeper and super deep field photos, the galaxies look practically identical to the nearby groups? They actually propose that we are looking 13-14 billion years back in time. These observations of course render the popular ancient universe theories impotent and quite ridiculous if not embarrassing. Prima facie evidence wiping out the big bangers. Unless of course they simply ignore it and soldier on lol.
ghostrider....
DeleteNobody has the slightest idea of what gravity is. The best theory I have heard is polarization of the ZPE field.
I have come across theories that huniliate plate tectonics. Theories postulating mountain building in WEEKS that were far more substantive than the commonplace junk science that I find simply pathetic by comparison.
Theories that point out how migration is by far the most potent and exceedingly rapid cause of extinction.
BTW 90% of the content you post belongs on '60's era textbooks now debunked. Yet the echoes linger on in your posts.
So tell me....how is it that in the Hubble deep, deeper and super deep field photos, the galaxies look practically identical to the nearby groups? They actually propose that we are looking 13-14 billion years back in time. These observations of course render the popular ancient universe theories impotent and quite ridiculous if not embarrassing. Prima facie evidence wiping out the big bangers. Unless of course they simply ignore it and soldier on lol.
cv5
DeleteI have come across theories that huniliate plate tectonics. Theories postulating mountain building in WEEKS that were far more substantive than the commonplace junk science that I find simply pathetic by comparison.
I'm sure you've found lots of woo on YouTube that you swallowed uncritically. Flat Earth? Homeopathic medicine? Magic crystals? Your basic scientific ignorance is curable at any decent community college with a science department. Your Dunning-Kruger attitude however you'll have to fix yourself.
ghostrider,
Delete"Then show your evidence species were "willed" into existence."
I also didn't say they were 'willed' into existence. It's a possibility, but I did not say they were. As for my evidence in that regard it's much the same as yours when it comes to the existence of a single common ancestor for all living organisms we see today and in the past, faith.
Nic: "You may insist these things are necessary but that does not dictate their necessity for anyone but you."
ghostrider: "Me and the rest of the scientific community."
I know this will come as a shock to you but you and the rest of the scientific community do not amount to a significant number in the overall scheme of things. And, as I have pointed out before, the entire scientific community is not on your side. Please, no more about 99.9% being in agreement with you.
"An omnipotent designer could mix and match any combination of traits and timelines and produce an unlimited number of different patterns."
Yes, he could, but he is not required to do so. He could also do things exactly the way we see them. That's the beauty of being omnipotent. It certainly is not up to you to decide how he should have done things.
"Evolution through common descent can only produce one very distinct pattern, and that's the pattern we see."
You're oh so right, evolution is woefully limited. However, God is not. So, because we see the pattern to which evolution would be limited, it does not mean evolution is the origin of that pattern. Logic is a wonderful tool. :)
It probably should also be obvious that whatever pattern was seen, that would be the pattern claimed by evolution.
ghostrider
Deleteany cogent rebuttals to my Hubble question would be appreciated. And to the mountain building theory,
this was fielded by a legitimate credentialed PHD MIT engineer with a masters degree in geology as I recall.
And he crunched the numbers. Did he ever.A robust theory with a plethora of correct predictions. Weeks buddy. Amazing stuff. Not saying he's 100% on all counts but IMO a good chunk of what he proposes is quite likely. Walt Brown is the name. And yes he is a Christian.
Ignorant tool:
DeleteThe matching nested branching pattern in the fossil and genetic records.
Common descent via gradual evolution cannot produce a nesting pattern. That is due to the nature of transitional forms which would blur any and all lines of distinction making it almost impossible to classify organisms if you had to classify them all.
Unguided evolution cannot account for genetics nor the fossil record so that would also be a problem.
Ignorant tool:
DeleteYou can't prove a negative nat.
Hey moron, Darwin's falsification criteria requires one to prove a negative. You are one ignorant dippy.
The best we can do is offer examples where there is no evidence of external design.
And yet no one ever has. ATP synthase is evidence for external design. The genetic code is evidence for it also. OTOH unguided evolution has nothing and you prove that every day.
Thank you
Wow, Timmy's cowardly equivocation and ignorance knows no bounds. The alleged origin of red algae and chloroplasts has nothing to say about natural selection and drift. It is all "It looks like it evolved to me".
DeleteAnd evolutionary algorithms model evolution via intelligent design. Unguided evolution isn't a search and doesn't have any goals. Evolutionary algorithms are active searches with pre-specified goals.
Timmy is just a desperate ignoramus
And evolutionary algorithms model evolution via intelligent design.
DeleteThey always end up there whether they like it or not.
Their "counter" is tat someone sez they model natural selection. Yet is it is obvious that whoever says that doesn't know jack about natural selection.
DeleteThe equivocation is very typical, as is the willful ignorance associated with not being able to comprehend what is being debated.
OK then, give me an example of an object you can prove with 100% certainty is not designed.
DeleteSo all rocks are artifacts and all deaths are murders? Seriously?
Or is Timmy just an ignorant fool?
We know naturally occurring processes can produce complex features and IC structures...
DeleteEvidence please. Start with ATP synthase. How can we test that natural selection and drift produced it? What are the testable hypotheses, models and predictions?
Fat Joke Gallien is having his Friday meltdown a day early. :D
Deletecv5
DeleteWalt Brown is the name.
O.M.G. Wally "wonderpants" Brown and his wacky hydroplate idea?? The senile Creationist nutter who claims the continents mover 3000 miles in a single day?? The one who claims the asteroids were all pieces of earth blasted off by the "fountains of the deep"?? The goofball whose claims violate practically all the known laws of physics??
Between you and Chubby Joke you guys just made my day! :)
Chubby Joke G
DeleteTheir "counter" is tat someone
One of the biggest tells Joke is having a meltdown: he types "tat" for "that". Watch for it! :)
Nic
DeleteYes, he could, but he is not required to do so. He could also do things exactly the way we see them. That's the beauty of being omnipotent.
It's also why ID-Creationism isn't scientific and why it is worthless as an explanation. ID-Creationism can never be falsified because any conceivable piece of evidence can be hand-waved away as "the omnipotent designer did it that was just because!".
There are lots of things that if found would have falsified ToE. ID-Creationism is unfalsifiable.
It's also why ID-Creationism isn't scientific and why it is worthless as an explanation.
DeleteID-Creationism only exists in the minds of the willfully ignorant. And here you are, again.
ID can be tested- it makes testable claims. OTOH evolutionism doesn't make testable claims. Even Darwin said one needs to prove a negative to falsify it.
That ID makes testable claims means it can be falsified. To falsify ID all one needs to do is demonstrate natural selection and drift are up to the task at hand. So ID is both testable and falsifiable. And Timmy Horton is still an ignorant coward.
One of the biggest tells Joke is having a meltdown: he types "tat" for "that".
DeleteOnly a moron on an agenda would jump to that asinine conclusion. I type tat instead of that all of the time regardless of the situation.
However the way to tell the evos are cowards and losers is they pick on typos. They also spew lies as if their lies actually mean something
Also Walter Brown understands science better than any evoTARD ever will.
DeleteGR:
DeleteIt's like this. When we make things we see that energy is neither created nor destroyed. We conclude that energy can't be created or destroyed. I think it is called induction. Also, when we make things, we see that we can't get certain characteristics like IC, highly specified complexity, etc, without design. Therefore we can conclude via induction, that these characteristics can't be created without design. I don't know where proving a negative comes in.
Oh, and by the way, if organism evolved in small increments, I would not expect to see a discrete nested branching hierarchy, but rather a smooth continuum. That's what all those incremental transitions would make, a smooth continuum. And one more thing. IT looks like the Creator did do a lot of mixing and of organisms at the genetic level. Lots of conflicting signals, bushed instead of trees, horizontal gene transfer, incomplete gene sorting, etc, at the genetic level. So you got your mixing and matching.
LOL! The Fat Joke Gallien meltdown continues unabated!
DeleteLoL! Timmy the lowlife coward strikes again
DeleteTo falsify evolutionism one has to prove a negative:
Delete"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [Darwin 1859, pg. 175].
Yet Timmy says that isn't science. Timmy inadvertently admits his position isn't a scientific one.
natschuster
Deletewe see that we can't get certain characteristics like IC, highly specified complexity, etc, without design.
That is simply false. We have empirical evidence IC structures can be created without conscious design. Look at any natural stone arch as a good example.
Chubby Joke's TARDGASMS generally last a day or two. Let's see how long he keeps up this latest childish ranting.
DeleteGR:
DeleteA stone arch is simply one piece of rock. Where's the complexity? Now, can I have an example of something as complex as a slingshot that wasn't designed?
nat
DeleteA stone arch is simply one piece of rock. Where's the complexity?
It's IC. Remove any piece of the stone and the arch collapses.
Now, can I have an example of something as complex as a slingshot that wasn't designed?
A shark's jaws.
ghostrider,
Delete"ID-Creationism can never be falsified because any conceivable piece of evidence can be hand-waved away as "the omnipotent designer did it that was just because!".
First, I'm sure you understand there is a difference between being falsifiable and actually being able to falsify.
Second, ID and creationism can both be falsified. All you would have to do is demonstrate scientifically that God, or any form of supernatural designer, does not exist. It's as simple as that.
Nic
DeleteFirst, I'm sure you understand there is a difference between being falsifiable and actually being able to falsify
I do know. ToE is falsifiable and can be falsified. ID-Creationism is not falsifiable and can't be falsified.
Second, ID and creationism can both be falsified. All you would have to do is demonstrate scientifically that God, or any form of supernatural designer, does not exist. It's as simple as that.
There you go, demanding that science prove a negative again. Tsk tsk.
Besides now you're going to have Joe G calling you a moron for suggesting the Designer must be supernatural. :)
We have empirical evidence IC structures can be created without conscious design. Look at any natural stone arch as a good example.
DeleteWhat stone arch? The stone arches made up of ONE component?
There you go, demanding that science prove a negative again.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [Darwin 1859, pg. 175].
Whoops
nic:
DeleteSecond, ID and creationism can both be falsified. All you would have to do is demonstrate scientifically that God, or any form of supernatural designer, does not exist.
ID doesn't require a supernatural designer. Behe and Minnich testified to that fact @ the Dover trial
AND to falsify ID all one has to do is demonstrate that natural selection, drift and any other materialistic process is up to the task at hand, namely producing living organisms.
DeleteThat is how all design inferences are falsified- by showing mother nature is sufficient to account for what is being investigated.
OTOH evolutionism requires us to prove a negative and doesn't have any positive case.
The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments.
DeleteNow let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis.
I think the very opposite is true. I think intelligent design is easily testable, easily falsifiable, although it has not been falsified, and Darwinism is very resistant to being falsified. They can always claim something was not right.- Dr Behe
ghostrider,
Delete"There you go, demanding that science prove a negative again. Tsk tsk."
But as I have already pointed out, science can prove a negative.
"Besides now you're going to have Joe G calling you a moron for suggesting the Designer must be supernatural. :)"
That's okay, you're much tougher than he is and I can handle you just fine. :)
Chubby Joke G
DeleteAND to falsify ID all one has to do is demonstrate that natural selection, drift and any other materialistic process is up to the task at hand, namely producing living organisms.
FAIL again Joke. That wouldn't do it because a sufficiently powerful Designer could manipulate natural processes to look just like evolution and produce a desired result. Behe's stupid example of falsification fails the same way.
ID-Creationism isn't falsifiable and isn't science.
Nic
DeleteBut as I have already pointed out, science can prove a negative.
But not all negatives as you already admitted. How could science prove it's impossible for supernatural beings to exist?
That's okay, you're much tougher than he is and I can handle you just fine. :)
You and the Black Knight "Alright we'll call it a draw". :)
Unbelieveable- Science Timmy. Learn about it. Also ID makes the claim that natural selection, drift and other materialistic processes are not up to the task. That is why you evoTARDs have been trying as hard as you can to show that those processes can produce IC.
DeleteBut thanks you for proving that you are a scientifically illiterate troll.
ID is falsifiable, IDists and science have said how to do so. And all Timmy can do is whine like a little ignorant cry-baby.
AND Timmy says that proving a negative isn't the way to do science and yet his position demands we do so.
Life is good
How could science prove it's impossible for supernatural beings to exist?
DeleteScience isn't about proof you ignorant troll.
The lie: ID is not falsifiable
DeleteThe truth: ID is falsifiable, IDists and science have said how to do so-> namely how all design inferences are scientifically falsified
The whine: No, that won't do it cuz I said so. Besides that means we have to actually support the claims of our position
Predictable and still pathetic
Chubby Joke G
DeleteThe truth: ID is falsifiable,
Omnipotent supernatural entities aren't falsifiable Chubs. That makes ID-Creationism not science.
Moron Timmy strikes again- ID doesn't require an omnipotent supernatural entity and ID is about the DESIGN and not the designer. And by showing that mother nature is all that is required you slice off the designer requirement.
DeleteScience 101 you impish ignoramus.
Chubby Joke
DeleteID doesn't require an omnipotent supernatural entity
Then who designed the Designer Chubs? The Designer you claim created the entire 45 billion light year wide universe just for humans?
Then who designed the Designer?
DeleteDo you think your infant tantrums mean something?
ID isn't about the designer, moron.
The Designer you claim created the entire 45 billion light year wide universe just for humans?
Keep humping strawmen. I am sure it makes you feel good but it makes you look like a desperate imbecile.
Timmy ghostrider adapa:
DeleteThere you go, demanding that science prove a negative again.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [Darwin 1859, pg. 175].
Whoops
"And so arguing evolution with an evolutionist is a lot like the Monty Python argument skit. They will pull out all manner of canards, misdirections, and fallacies, depending on their mood at the moment."
DeleteGR:
DeleteA stone arch is one piece. It isn't complex, irreducible or otherwise. It isn't relevant to our discussion.
And we don't know that a shark's jaw wasn't designed.
And if ID is not falsifiable, why do evolutionists claim it was falsified?
natshooster
DeleteA stone arch is one piece. It isn't complex, irreducible or otherwise. It isn't relevant to our discussion.
A stone arch is IC and formed naturally. That kills your stupid "IC requires design" dead.
And we don't know that a shark's jaw wasn't designed.
We have zero evidence it was designed and lots that it wasn't.
And if ID is not falsifiable, why do evolutionists claim it was falsified?
Certain specific claims made by ID have been falsified. The overall concept of a supernatural Designer is not falsifiable.
ghostrider,
Delete"But not all negatives as you already admitted. How could science prove it's impossible for supernatural beings to exist?"
The only test as to whether something is or is not falsifiable is whether there is a reasonable scenario in which that thing could be falsified. Obviously there is not a requirement that it must be falsified, as something which is fundamentally true cannot be falsified.
The fact that science cannot prove God does not exist only goes to demonstrate the limitations of science and does nothing to lend evidence to the argument against the existence of God.
"You and the Black Knight "Alright we'll call it a draw". :)"
Oh, I see, running away eh? Come on, it's only a scratch. :)
Certain specific claims made by ID have been falsified.
DeleteName one. Your stone arch doesn't fit the bill because IC is about multi-part systems. Behe's mousetrap has 5
A stone watch is not complex at all. It is one piece. I.C. means irreducible complexity. your leaving out the compity part?
DeleteAnd since we don't know that a sharks jaw was not fesignef it. Doesn't count as proof that it can happen without design.
DeleteStone watch?
DeleteAre you off the wagon again nat?
Go ahead nat. Give me an example of an object you can prove 100% is not designed. When you sober up that is.
DeleteNatural arch made of many mixed stones
Deletemulti-part natural arch
The IDiots lose again. :)
Yo, evotard,
DeleteDoes that arch look like a mechanism to you? Or were you fantasizing about having two bungholes?
ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
Fruit Loop Louis
DeleteOr were you fantasizing about having two bungholes?
We don't have to fantasize that Fruit Loop. We have you and JoeG.
Don't you dare project your homosexual fantasies on me, dirt worshipper.
Deleteahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
Don't worry Fruit Loop. Even if I were gay I wouldn't be interested in a brain-damaged druggie like you.
DeleteGR:
DeleteThe arch consists of stones that were cemented into one unit. It functions as one unit. Still not complex. Sorry. Oh, and complex usually means, in this context, lots of different things. The arch just has stones. That's different.
And I keep on asking you for something as complex as a slingshot that we know wasn't designed because you assert that it is possible despite the fact that it has never been observed. I'm requesting that you provide evidence that it is possible. That means we need something we know was not designed, or it doesn't count as evidence that such a thing is possible.
And if ID was not falsified, how can you call anyone who believes in it all the names you call them? Maybe it is true, and they are correct?
nat shooster
DeleteThe arch consists of stones that were cemented into one unit.
Still made out of multiple individual stones nat. It's an IC structure that formed naturally no matter how much you squirm.
And I keep on asking you for something as complex as a slingshot that we know wasn't designed
I keep asking you for an object you can prove 100% wasn't designed.
Maybe it is true, and they are correct?
No evidence for that. Too bad for the IDiots.
It isn't complex since it funvtiond as just one unit. Movrover complex things have lots of different things. The things in the arch are all rocks. Two reasons why it isn't complex unlike organisms that are or slingshots
DeleteAnd if you are trying to prove that thongs that looked don't need to be designed, don't you have to provide something that was definitely not designed?
And your missing the point. Even if is has no evidence, if it hasn't been falsified because it can't be falsified why do you have such a problem with people believing it? Why do you get personal? Why do you take it personally if they might be right?
Any fool other than ghostrider could discriminate between a natural stone arch and one the Roman's built.
DeleteGhostrider please define for us non-random periodic signals provide some examples and describe their origins.
Doing so will enlighten all of us.
Thank you.
nat the squirmer
DeleteIt isn't complex since it funvtiond as just one unit.
Then a bacterial flagellum isn't complex because it functions as one unit.
The stone arch is IC nat. Squirming just makes you look foolish.
C'mon cv5, tell us more about Wally "wonderpants" Brown and his wonderful YEC geology. :D
DeleteThe bacreisl flagellum had many different poeces that do differvent things. The function depends on those different things the stones in the arch are all the same functionally and the arch can function without all those stones as a single unit ad well. That's different CV it isn't complex
Deleteghostrider
Deleteflattery will get you nowhere. Brown's theories have correctly predicted certain latter observations. I am not saying he is on the money on all counts but certainly intriguing. Still awaiting your rebuttal to my inquiries.
(Corrected copy, not done on a moving train)
DeleteThe bacterial flagellum has many different pieces that do different things. The function depends on those different things. The stones in the arch are all the same functionally and the arch can function without all those stones as a single unit as well. That's different. It isn't complex
cv5
DeleteBrown's theories have correctly predicted certain latter observations.
LOL! Brown is such an out-to-lunch nutter even other YEC organizations like AIG and ICR won't touch him. His scenarios read like something out of a drug induced bad dream. Pretty much everything he suggests directly violates multiple laws of physics. But feel free to present his wing-nuttery here if you like. It would be highly amusing.
DeleteThen a bacterial flagellum isn't complex because it functions as one unit.
It is made up of thousands of protein subunits from over 30 different proteins. And your position can't even account for the proteins let alone the flagellum.
As for out-to-lunch nutters, that would be you and yours who think that matter and energy can form life and that differing accumulations of genetic accidents produced its diversity.
Timmy:
DeleteThe stone arch is IC nat.
Saying that makes you look like a desperate fool. But then again you don't care about that.
DeleteScience isn't about proof. So thank you for proving that you don't understand science.
That said seeing that not all rocks are considered to be artifacts, not all deaths are considered to be murders and not all fires are considered to be arsons, we obviously have a metric for making that determination.
But then again Timmy is too stupid to understand that
Oh boy! Chubby Joke's TARDGASM has entered its second day!
DeleteOh boy, Timmy Horton's record of substance-free posts enters its 12,000th day
Deletehello ghostrider
DeleteStill waiting buddy
Sure ghostrider. Everyone is an out to lunch nutter except for your evolutionist peers. Hitler and Stalin would be proud of you. And when you happen to disagree with them they would kill you. You know it occurs to me that evolutionist are by and large eugenicists. At least as far as the historical records can demonstrate. Welcome to the club.
DeleteMapou: "Christophobic atheist closet homosexual Billy attacking someone by pointing to what somebody else said. Precious."
ReplyDeleteReading comprehension is obviously not one of your strengths. carefully read the comment to which Cornelius was responding to. I realize that some of the words are more than one syllable, but if you sound them out slowly, I have faith that you will be able to understand them.
Like I said. Pack your opinion up your asteroid and see if anybody cares.
ReplyDeleteahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
"ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahahaha."
ReplyDeleteDo you type this every time or do you cut and paste. Inquiring minds want to know.
There is a bigger issue of how humans correct themselves.
ReplyDeleteIs "science' folks any different? NO!
Science is about suring up conclusions.
Yet it still is a human(tailless primate for some) doing the suring.
my question to evos and creos is always about the essence of the evidence.
with creationists and evolutionists I hit a wall about what they think biological scientific evidence is?
For evolution evidence claims they use non biological evidences. They use comparative anatomy and genetics., biogeography, fossils(geology) etc
I struggle to wrestle them down that these are not bio sci evidences.
They are not evidence for biological processes being asserted. they are biological data points being joined to gether by lines of reasoning employing other subjects.
Fossils have never made a evidence claim for or against(Sorry ID brothers) evolutionary processes for proving biological origins.
There is a great issue of what the essence of proof is.
I suspect everyone is not innocent.
I guess that means me too but its invisible to me.
Darwinist arguments have not been "holding water" since the day the doomed theory was first announced. It was stupid then and it is stupid now. Everyone knows it. Even Darwinists know it deep down in their dark, tiny little hearts.
ReplyDeleteRobert Byers, The Truth Will Set You Free and Mapou, the ID brain trust. With these three on the job, evolution has nothing to fear. Throw Joe into the mix, and they will make evolution immortal.
DeleteYo, Mr. Christophobic Gay Evotard.
DeleteYou know. I've often wondered why anybody would should a pseudonym like Spearshake. And then I realized that it's a purely closet gay thing. You just can't shake that homosexual nature, can you? LOL
I'll tell you what. Why don't you go pack sand up your ass and see if I care? Take that brain-dead evotard Timothy with you. You can take turns watching each other. LOL
On second thought, maybe that's not such a good idea. Seeing that you two are male closet homosexuals, you might actually like it.
ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
By the by, how is your chicken shit little war against fundamentalist Christians working for y'all?
ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
William,
Delete"they will make evolution immortal."
Evolution is already immortal and completely without the help of these gentleman. It will continue to be immortal along with panspermia, homeopathy, phrenology, the multiverse and other nonsensical ideas which wound up on the ash heap of scientific foolishness. :)
Whatever Kevin. Too bad you won't be called on to testify at the next trial that questions evolutionism.
DeleteJoke: "Too bad you won't be called on to testify at the next trial that questions evolutionism."
DeleteNot to worry. We can rely on the ten year old evolutionists to counter any "argument" the ID crowd brings forward. I will be busy drinking beer in a Munich beer garden.
Well ten year olds know more than you ever will. Too bad not even working evolutionary biologists will be able to counter what ID brings forward as evidenced by the lack of countering taking place now.
DeleteNic, you forgot to put scare quotes around the word "gentlemen". When using it to refer to these four, it is a requirement.
ReplyDeleteLoL! Kevin the evoTARD projectionist strikes again!
DeleteYour problem, dirt worshipper, is that you are neither gentle nor a man. You're a lying Christophobic atheist closet homosexual pretending to be interested in science. Shake that spear, Billy boy.
Deleteahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
Were ever two ignorant and profane Creationists made for each other better than Fruit Loop Louis Savain and Chubby Joke Gallien? It's a match made in heaven. :)
DeleteWilliam,
ReplyDelete"Nic, you forgot to put scare quotes around the word "gentlemen". When using it to refer to these four, it is a requirement."
I just noticed I used the singular form as well, not good.
We are all only human.
DeleteWilliam,
Delete"We are all only human."
Well, most of us are. The way some others act leads me to wonder at times. Why is it so hard for some to simply exchange ideas and beliefs and do so in a polite and respectful manner? I have never understood the need to hurl an insult at every opportunity.
Nic, the spineless Christina:
DeleteWhy is it so hard for some to simply exchange ideas and beliefs and do so in a polite and respectful manner? I have never understood the need to hurl an insult at every opportunity.
Well be like Jesus, seeing that you often tell others to do likewise. He did insult his enemies, the Pharisees, by calling them snakes and white tombs with dead filth and worms on the inside.
One should be nice to one's friends and one should defend oneself against one's enemies.
You Christians keep forgetting where your religion came from. I try to follow the example of King David who was a man after God's own heart. No hugs and kisses for Goliath and his buddies.
Darwinists and atheists make it their business to attack my religion. They will get a taste of their own medicine.
ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
LOL. I didn't mean to call you Christina. I must have been thinking of Timothy Horton, the Christophobic closet homosexual atheist.
Deleteahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
Then let someone with an inquiring mind ask the question.
ReplyDeleteIs this blog moderated in any way ? I think Louis Savain is out of court.
ReplyDeleteGraham: "s this blog moderated in any way ?"
DeleteAs Louis is so fond of saying:
ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahaha
No, there is obviously no moderation here. Any obscenity, abusiveness, bigotry, racism and miscogeny that supports ID is endorsed.
If there were moderation here the likes of you would be banned. Then there wouldn't be any responding insults to your loser attacks.
DeleteAlso any moderator would make you and yours support their claims with actual science. That is something you chumps could never do.
Ghostrider
ReplyDeleteWhat you propose as science just isn't. Under scrutiny eevolution simply fails. A childish notion that is supposed to be a theory of everything. Self conflicting to such an absurd extent you would think that no self-respecting scientist would fly under that that canard. I would reconsider your position as you are running out of time quite frankly. The Truth is on display for all to see. Nobody has any excuse and apparently will not be excused. Sounds harsh I know.
cv5
ReplyDeleteWhat you propose as science just isn't. Under scrutiny eevolution simply fails.
So Creationists are fond of claiming. Yet when I look around I see thousands of colleges, universities, research labs, natural history museums, and millions of professional scientists still using the paradigm successfully.
Maybe if you stomp your feet and hold your breath while typing these fact-free rants all those scientists will finally listen to your Creationist "wisdom."
Yet when I look around I see thousands of colleges, universities, research labs, natural history museums, and millions of professional scientists still using the paradigm successfully.
DeleteSome quotes from those "professional scientists"
Richard Lewontin of Harvard
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Peter J. Bowler
"We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions."
Prof Mano Singham
Writing about the students trust in him.
"... I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.
https://donpartridge.wordpress.com/natural-health-resources-info-links/professor-admits-profs-brainwash-students-w-propaganda/
Dale Goorskey
DeleteSome quotes from those "professional scientists"
LOL! Wouldn't be a Creationist site without someone offering up the usual dishonestly quote-mined nonsense, especially the well abused Lewontin one.
ghostrider,
Delete"LOL! Wouldn't be a Creationist site without someone offering up the usual dishonestly quote-mined nonsense, especially the well abused Lewontin one."
The onus is then on you to demonstrate these quotes are being presented out of context. I'll wait for you to provide the evidence. :)
The Lewontin quote-mine has been done to death.
DeleteThe second dishonest quote-mine is from a review here of paleontologist Henry Gee's book In Search Of Deep Time. The out-of-context passage was describing old views of cladistics, not stating modern scientific views.
The third has nothing to do with evolution. It's a Physics professor explaining how he teaches the basics to freshman.
All three dishonest mined quotes were regurgitated from the ICR site here.
Creationists just have to lie. They can't help themselves.
ghsotrider,
Delete"The Lewontin quote-mine has been done to death."
With all due respect, ghostrider, you're just simply wrong here. The Lewontin quote is presented in context.
As for the Henry Gee quote I present below the entire paragraph from which the quote was taken. It is from a an article found in American Scientist in 2000. It clearly demonstrates the quote provided by Dale Goorskey is completely within context.
"The consequence of all this, the cladists insist, is that all the old paraphernalia of evolutionary explanations must be dismissed as unscientific speculation. All we can do is assess degrees of relationship. We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination driven by prejudices and preconceptions. They reflect our modern ideas about the purposes of adaptive structures and about the progressive trend we think we see in the history of life up to humankind. They cannot be part of science because they cannot be tested against the fossil record. This is not an anti-evolution diatribe because cladism depends on the notion of common ancestry, and Gee admits that Darwin's theory can be applied in the modern world where we can actually see ecological relationships at work. But cladism places severe restrictions on what kind of questions can be asked about the distant past, in the cause of raising paleontology to the ranks of a hard science." American Scientist March-April, 2000.
"The third has nothing to do with evolution. It's a Physics professor explaining how he teaches the basics to freshman."
Perhaps it does have nothing to do with evolution per se, but it is revealing in that it shows the attitude of some professors in some institutions. It shows their intent is not to encourage objective investigative thought in their students but rather to bend the students to their way of thinking. I think you will agree, that is not a good method of teaching.
Nic giving respect to a Christophobic atheist jackass who hates Christianity because he's a closet homosexual and a dirt worshipper (LOL):
DeleteWith all due respect, ghostrider
Man, grow a pair. Or something.
ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
Louis,
Delete"Nic giving respect to a Christophobic atheist jackass who hates Christianity because he's a closet homosexual and a dirt worshipper (LOL):"
It's just the way I am and the way I was brought up, you treat people with respect. I guess you could say it's about treating people the way you would like them to treat you.
Mapou doesn't understand the concept of respect.
ReplyDeleteEspecially having respect for oneself.
DeleteCan you fix the Monty Python typo in the original article? You started out correct but at the end it became Monte.
ReplyDelete