Tuesday, November 8, 2016

The Big Day Has Finally Arrived

What Will The Decision Be?

After years of battling and debating, we have finally reached the big day with its big decisions. Tensions are running high as the old-guard status quo battles the radical new ideas—it is the “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology” meeting at the Royal Society where evolutionists are finally reckoning with the science which makes no sense on the theory. The problem is that species adapt not according to the random mutations coupled with natural selection, but according to mechanisms that respond directly to the environment. The Big Day Has Finally Arrived.

12 comments:

  1. You are under the misconception that adaptation is not the result of random mutation and selective pressures (in addition to other things like HGT and drift).

    The adaptation that IDists keep harping on about still are the result of the expression (or non-expression) of genes. Genes that are the result of mutation and selection pressures.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is no longer 1950. You no longer control the information, and no longer can you spread false science. Your religiously-driven pseudo-science is coming to an end.

      Delete
    2. Cornelius Hunter

      You no longer control the information, and no longer can you spread false science.


      If the Evil Scientist Conspiracy no longer controls information then why are ID-Creationists still unable to publish a single speck of positive evidence for their POOF CREATION hypothesis? Why is it still the same old false dichotomy "evolution can't explain this to my satisfaction so ID-Creationism wins by default"?

      Delete
  2. "You no longer control the information, and no longer can you spread false science. Your religiously-driven pseudo-science is coming to an end."

    I think I saw someone walking up and down the street wearing a sandwich board with these words on it. The other side said, "Repent. The end is near."

    ReplyDelete
  3. I read that DNA comparisons work except in the many cases where the don't work. Anyway, the plans for making cars look alike, too. But that is because of the structural functional similarities. Now, nobody says that cars and trucks evolved from a common ancestor by a
    Darwinian process.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cornelius,

    How do you think the outcome will help the ID hypothesis, if at all? At the end of day, even if current thinking on evolution changes, won't the mechanisms at work still be considered as nothing but naturalistic. Really not sure what you expecting from this symposium that benefits your position (whatever that is, because you never seem to want to offer anything of use...)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you think the outcome will help the ID hypothesis, if at all? At the end of day, even if current thinking on evolution changes, won't the mechanisms at work still be considered as nothing but naturalistic.

      Yes, agreed. It is not as though we have Theory A and Theory B which we are evaluating on the empirical evidence. Evolution is a religious theory, and the religious mandate is that God strictly used secondary causes, and so the evolutionary explanation must always be strictly constrained to naturalism. This is the a priori, philosophy of science, underwriting the theory. CD, gradualism, RM+NS, etc., are all forfeitable. Naturalism is not forfeitable. For those interested in the empirical evidence, OTH, meetings such as this can help, even though the participants themselves are religiously-driven. The cognitive dissonance is on display.

      Really not sure what you expecting from this symposium that benefits your position (whatever that is, because you never seem to want to offer anything of use...)

      Actually I've talked about it many times. Perhaps you forgot. For example:

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/here-is-completely-different-way-of.html

      Delete
  5. The meeting shows what should not be. Dissent even amongst those who agree a great deal with evolutionism.
    What other "theory' has so much trouble from so many directions?
    They really did never establish evolutionism on biological evidence.
    They didn't and couldn't.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So great to see you posting again. It's so refreshing to here the truth. That is probably why there is a President-elect Trump. He also tells people the truth like no other politician. The greatest American politician of all time. People finally wake up to the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "
    So great to see you posting again. It's so refreshing to here the truth. That is probably why there is a President-elect Trump. He also tells people the truth like no other politician. The greatest American politician of all time."


    Never mind that fact checkers state that he lies over 70% of the time. Never mind that he said there is no drought in California (I live there as does CH I think, and it is plainly visible to us). Never mind he has a horrible track record of misogyny, racism and doesn't seem to have a scrap of human kindness or empathy.

    Wow, just wow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i'm Canadian and the election is irrelevant. Trump is a terible misfortune but Hilary was worse.
      in her defeat speech, wickedly, she accused the people of not voying for her, hurting little girls, because of being evil sexists.
      she accused of a glass ceiling against her country.
      its a profound accusation against so many men or women.
      she ran on a ticket, like Obama, that her identity/her deserved and others didn't.
      A great rejection of American rights and contracts.
      she applauded women working to give the presidency to a women AND NOT A MAN.
      I guess not black men either!
      What a foolish, yes wicked, woman.
      Losing to Trump, losing obama votes also, is a great failure in ability.
      Its bad in canada but poor America.
      oh well. evolutionism time for defeat is here too.

      Delete
    2. "...in her defeat speech, wickedly, she accused the people of not voying for her, hurting little girls, because of being evil sexists."

      She said absolutely nothing of the kind, you have twisted her words. Here's what she actually said from the transcript of her speech:

      "Now, I know, I know we have still not shattered that highest and hardest glass ceiling but someday, someone will and hopefully sooner than we think right now. And to all the little girls who are watching this, never doubt that you are valuable, and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world to pursue and achieve your own dreams."

      And given that women make 70c on the dollar in this country and we have yet to see either a women president or vice president in 240 - and women have had the vote for less than half of that time, yes there is absolutely a glass ceiling still to be broken.

      It will be revealing to look at Trump's cabinet and see if is anywhere as diverse as that of Canada.

      Delete